Netflix just dropped Ancient Apocalypse, where a journalist goes around the world in a scuba suit to try and prove that there were civilizations around during the last Ice Age. His main point is that Atlantis was around during the Ice Age and submerged when the sea levels rose… and then they spread civilization everywhere so it gets into some weirder territory. The scuba journalist shows a bunch of clips from his interview on Joe Rogan, so obviously I’m taking all of this in with a critical lens. He’s got some great footage though and crafting some believable narratives, so I started googling. I haven’t found anything about it on any reputable sites. I’m guessing my Atlantis dreams are dashed but I wanted to see if the good people here can shed any light on the likelihood that the hominids around during the last Ice Age were more advanced than hunter gatherers.

Slightly unrelated but if possible can you describe honestly, and factually if Tito was a good leader or not. Some call him one of the GOAT's, while some others consider him to be horrible. Could never get a reliable answer on it.

edit: was it a build-up of events that caused Yugoslavia to break apart, with Tito as the tipping point*

I think that during the Revolutionary War soldiers who joined the Continental Army were recruited through one or more of the three following methods: 1) patriotism, 2) drafted into service, 3) to defend their homes and rights, and 4) the promise of good pay and land. I also know that the British army were able to recruit soldiers through patriotism (ex: loyalists) and impressment, but what about pay? Were the British able to attract new recruits through promises of good pay and land? And how much were British soldiers paid compared to a soldier in the Continental Army?

Wouldn't he be the German Emperor Frederick I? And if it was for Prussia, shouldn't it have been Frederick V?

When Edward VIII of the United Kingdom abdicated in 1936 he again became Prince Edward and later The Duke of Windsor.

Yet, Alfonso XIII of Spain and Victor Emmanuel III of Italy when they abdicated retained their styles of Majesty and didn't become princes (I think).

So why did Edward VIII revert to a prince and not His Majesty King Edward VIII until his death?

Colonialism and decolonisation are important topics in today's discourse. I was wondering if there is a concrete definition and how this differs from historical empires . We say the Roman Empire but British colonialism. Is the difference in the level of technology that was employed or the distances involved ie. Between the place people are coming from and the place being invaded ? I've often seen colonialism described in a uniquely western context and this feels odd to me because I would argue there have been empires and enslavement all across the world and this comes across as ahistorical.

I'm currently taking human geography, and my textbook said that French Polynesia is considered a colony by the UN. From my limited knowledge of French history, after world war two they had a referendum asking their colonies if they wanted to join France proper, or become independent, which is why French Guiana isn't considered a colony. So did Polynesia not get the referendum? Or did they say no to becoming part of France, but didn't go independent?

It would seem that the ancient Chinese would have had plenty of contact with peoples who used alphabetic writing systems. It also seems like in most places that encountered alphabetic writing systems, they were eventually adopted. So why not in China?

So, my father likes watching Ancient Aliens. And a point that made me laugh was when they claimed that fiction came later and of course something something is true and is proof of aliens. You know, their bread and butter. Anyways, it got me laughing because... Ancient Aliens. And then, I was thinking.

In most European Languages, the eldest works in fact appear to be fiction, because administrativa and science tended to be written in latin. Let's see. Polish had some fascinating story about grain being milled while someone sleeps, English had Beowulf...

But... how is it overall? Are the fiction sources older or is it non-fiction, actually?

In media, being accused of being a witch during the witch trial era is generally presented as being an instant death sentence. Like, the moment someone says "SHE'S A WITCH!" you're immediately declared guilty and executed.

But if that was the case, then why would they even have witchfinders? If it was a matter of just executing everyone accused, why bother having an investigation?

Were there any cases of someone being accused of witchcraft, getting investigated and then being told "nope, not a witch, sorry for the inconvenience." If so, what made them come to that conclusion (given that obviously nobody accused was actually a witch).

Also, were there any penalties for people who were deemed to have maliciously accused an innocent person of witchcraft in order to get them executed?

I’ve tried to google a book on this era but all I’m coming up with is a hard to find esoteric book called free banking by Hugh rockoff

Ex-Russian/British/Spanish empire countries still know/speak Russian/English/Spanish but almost none of the Ottoman Empire subjects outside Turkey know/speak Turkish. Why?

Hello everyone! I’m currently writing a thesis on bilingual history teaching (German/English) and I keep coming across the comparison of Völkerwanderung/barbarian invasion. There must be a debate going on in English-speaking historiography about whether that term is accurate, right? I’ve also seen migration period used instead. Would you say that ‘barbarian invasion’ is still the term of choice for most historians? (And, if you have any information on that, is it commonly used in schools?) If you happen to know any secondary sources discussing this, feel free to post them as well. Thank you!

Both the podcast I'm listening to and the Wikipedia page say the Nazca region was named after the ancient people that drew the Nazca lines. How do we know what an ancient people that left 0 written records, called themselves?

It is far from the other parts of countrt. Non-defendeble region. Constantly captured and pillaged through history. Why is wasnt Nanjing?

I’m honestly most curious to hear about the historical conceptions of Cesare and his family in general. When Rodrigo was Pope, were contemporaries just overly complimentary to win the family’s favor?

Hey everyone, I’m doing a research on the Glyndwr Rising, and I found out that Brittany also supported the Welsh side, didn’t they had a marrieage alliegance with Henry IV already? How the situation ended up this way? Was it about the Breton-Welsh culture-language similiarities?

For example, in what we call Sweden today, there were Swedes but also other tribes like the Geats. In Norway, is there any tribes like this? What would the Saxons or even themselves have called themselves? Norweigan? Or were there smaller tribes within Norway?

Living in the UK, they would be in back to backs or tenement buildings, often living as a whole family in one room only. Would it have been a similar situation? New York infrastructure seems much larger scale, would this have had any impact on the quality of living?

As someone who grew up in a very cold weather environment, I can tolerate the cold better than almost anyone but as soon as it gets above 50 it's shorts and t shirt weather for me. The slightest bit of heat can cause me to sweat a LOT and I'm one of those people who keeps their apartment as cold as possible all year round.

Given this background info, you can get how I would be flabbergasted on how people in like the 1800s weren't constantly sweating - they always wore long pants, long dresses, long sleeves and (in the case of upper class folks) various suit jackets. Not to mention the complete lack of indoor air conditioning until relatively recently, and if you go even further back, water wasn't always readily available and safe to drink.

So my question is the following - how on earth did people survive summers dressed so conservatively and with little access to water? Were their bodies just used to it? Did having less salt in their food make them sweat less and less dehydrated? Or did people actually wear looser and more comfortable clothing outside back in the day but it's never been really portrayed in film?