I know that Rio de Janeiro used to be capital for a while until Brasília in 1960. But why there compared to São Paulo where the population is bigger

Reading about rise of evidence-based science and the formalization of the Scientific Method, then looking further back to the Greek era of "scientists" who seem to have relied heavily on reason and logic instead of experiments.

I'm very curious how early scientists in Greece and the Middle East rationlized the natural phenomena around them.

As the title suggests. The Marquis De Lafayette has been popping up in a lot of podcasts I've been listening to as well as some other topics I read about: The French Revolution, etc. So Everything I hear about this guy I like. What are some good reads on him? I searched Amazon and there are a lot of books, looking for the historians suggestion on the best.

EDIT: Also figured this is a good time to ask why do they call him "The" Marquis De Lafayette instead of just Marquis? I think it's cool, just wondering.

Also, did his image evolve as time progressed?

I'm not really sure if this is "history", but I figure the answer probably lies in history, so

I was reading about how William Shatner won't be able to make it to Leonard Nimoy's funeral, which is this Sunday. Nimoy was Jewish, and Judaism generally encourages having a funeral not long after death (for example, Nimoy will be buried only two days after his passing). I know that Islam has similar customs.

I'm wondering... why do Jews and Muslims customarily have funerals not long after death, while in Christianity the funeral can take place after a longer span of time? And has it always been this way?

(My THEORY, tell me if I'm wrong or not, is that it has something to do with the fact that Christianity, unlike Judaism and Islam, became the dominant religion of Europe, and so some sort of European attitude or whatever caused it to not as strict about burial time as the other two)

I am aware that Henry II was somewhat 'invited' into Ireland to deal with a succession dispute regarding the King of Ireland (or so I remember), and I have heard that is why Edward I did in Scotland. Is this true? And what about Wales?

I am conducting research for a graduate class about the information-seeking needs and behaviors of historians. I must interview some historians, and I thought this would be a great place to do so. I am a long time lurker, and this is my first post in this sub - I hope this type of question is allowed (I did read the rules, I promise)!

With that being said, I suppose you need some questions to get the conversation going! What is the process you go through to find background information or relevant information on your topic? What types of sources do you utilize the most? Where are you most likely to begin your research (libraries, the Internet, etc.)? Do you utilize archives and do you prefer the physical archive over the digital archive?

And as a bonus set of questions, are any of you members of a historical society? What do you feel is the most useful aspect of said society (community, resources, connections, etc.).

I appreciate any feedback you can provide me. It is fun to read the countless studies done about this topic and all, but I would much rather hear from you all!

I'm particularly interested in the area around southern Iraq between Ur and Kish. The area was called the fertile crescent and I've heard there was a lot of marshland, but I have no idea how to picture it in my head.

Was it mostly desert with areas of greenery and some marshy bits within a short radius of the Tigris and Euphrates? Was the entire area more covered in large trees that had strong roots hold the soil even when the rivers would flood or was it mostly fast-growing shrubbery that would get washed away with each flood but then grow again after?

And really, what did the floods look like every year? How far did the water reach and with what kind of force?

I don't expect all of these questions to be answered, but anything you guys can tell me about the general landscape would be awesome! Thanks a lot!

I was watching ww2 in HD on Netflix last night and they said this guy who was a newly promoted corporal took control of his squad during a battle. How did they decide he was ready for a promotion and did they promote soldiers often? I have no experience with the army promotion system but it seems like it would be hard to track who they promoted and when.

Sorry if this is stupid, but it has been bothering me. I recently watched the movie Gladiator, and I always wondered why the Romans didn't continue shooting the barbarians when they stood in the forest taking the shots. In matter of fact, the Romans were the ones to make the first move.

I'm not a general for a reason. However, wouldn't it make more sense continuing the bombardment against the barbarians? They were engulfed in flames, and had no way of protecting themselves. The Romans could have stayed back waiting for the barbarians to make the first move. Wouldn't this have saved many Roman lives?

This can apply to most battles in ancient history. I understood you need to gain ground so you're not pinned back, but in this situation the Romans were far more superior than the barbarians.

Hi everyone!

I am currently embarking on a research project for my Senior Writing Assignment at University. I have chosen to evaluate rape in 19th century America, but I am having an extremely difficult time finding sources, specifically primary, on the matter.

I have looked into newspapers and find snips here and there, mostly about court laws, etc.

What other "terms" were used in the 19th century to signify rape? I have searched "rape, ravage, seduce, ravish" etc, but can't really find much.

Also, do any of you have a direction I could possibly go towards in order to find more primary sources? I was hoping to find 3 cases, like Mary Rogers if you've researched her, and compare the three. Or to evaluate how the public understood and treated rape cases of a white upper class, a black woman, prostitutes (if there is any information on rapes within brothels, I'm sure it happened but I would need a source to back it up), and even children (as I have read a couple articles in newspapers of men suspected of raping a child)

ANY help would be greatly appreciated!

Like was racism always existent in that people prejudged other people by the colour of their skin before having any previously obtained knowledge of those other races or did racism emerge later due to something like the African slave trade?

Chang and Halliday’s Mao: The Unknown Story is apparently considered to be intent on portraying him as an utter cynical monster from his earliest years, relying on what has been deemed very selective and circumstantial evidence.

Okay, so is it really that bad? I noticed early on that the narrative was rather bombastic (kind of like Suetonius, amirite?), but if one is always aware of that, keeping one’s distance, can the book still be useful? After all, I like how it uses many Soviet sources, providing a truly enlightening perspective on the birth and growth of the CCP.

And if it is that unreliable, what would be the definitive, ultimate Mao biography, from a historian’s point of view?