So, in Australia, the closer you are to the central business areas, generally the wealthier the area becomes, whereas the outer suburbs are generally lower socioeconomic areas. On Reddit, I've noticed that a lot of US "inner city" areas are talked about as centres of crime, poverty, etc, while people talk about living in the suburbs as if it's much nicer.

I was wondering how American cities developed so that the closer you are to the middle, the poorer it gets (and if it's true as well).

Though I would also be interested in it in the 1500 - 1850 period, toward the mid 1800 many countries set up official police forces. But I am curious, if someone committed murder who went about policing and investigating those crimes? I get the impression that because political units were quite small (even in 'the Kingdom of France' each lord ruled a province under his own laws) who investigated murders? Did they bother to investigate a killed peasant? Did you have to be important to warrant an investigation. Who did the investigating? Were all the courts run by the Church?

A very unscientific sample among my friends reveals that, without exception, every one of us learned about these three columns. No context to it, just that Doric columns have the square cap, Ionic have the scroll, and Corinthian are the really fancy ones. Why on earth did we all have to learn that?

To quote William Butler Yeats: "Then in 1900, everybody got down off his stilts; henceforth no one went mad; nobody committed suicide; nobody joined the Catholic Church or if they did I have forgotten. Victorianism had been defeated."

Suicide rates rose drastically in the 19th century, what do historians speculate to have been the cause? The decline of Christianity? Suicide's prominence in Romantic Art ( Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Wether) or the psychological / sociological effects of industrialization? When did this rise begin? Were suicide rates rising in the 18th century? Was there a overall change in the public view of suicide?

I'm to understand that little is known of the man but I'm curious as to exactly what kind of man he could have been given some of the feats he accomplished. I know that much of his success is owed to Rome's lack of response to his rebellion, sending second-rate troops to fight him. But still, he takes an army of people from all sorts of backgrounds and cultures and consistently trounces the Roman army, including one battle fought on two fronts in which he defeats both forces.

How does a gladiator, a showman, have the military skill and leadership to win such victories against Rome itself?

I was just curious what the thoughts of him or other like him were on American racism.

I am writing a history paper on multiculturalism among Philadelphia criminals during prohibition. I came across an online source mentioning an African-American book-keeper named "Forest White Woodard" during this period, and he was said to have become the richest black man in Philadelphia by 1930. However, the only sources I have found about him seem to repeat this phrase and every search I have made regarding him on google has come up empty. Does anyone in r/askhistorians have a scholarly historical article regarding this man's life, or mentioning it in any way that I can use for this paper, or should I omit him because I lack any substantial evidence to discuss him?

Hi,

I've heard that one 'flag post' of the collapse of the western Roman Empire is 476 when Odoacer became king of Italy. This is fine for me, what trips me up is the Empire being described as 'collapsed' when Africa and Italy were largely recovered by the eastern Empire by the 540s. Is there a school of thought that disagrees with the whole notion of collapse?

Thanks.

What is the plan of attack? How many vikings are fighting/raiding with me? What are we armed with? Who is in charge of me? Where do we go to find the "booty"? How did we pick this particular site to pillage?

I was curious how much time passed/what actions of goodwill were done to mend relations between the two countries after the war.

Were there any armed conflicts, what were the diplomatic consequences?

So this is a multiple part question, looking through the wikipedia article of the Mongol Empire the oldest written piece of literature ("The Secret History of the Mongol") was written after Genghis Khan's deaths I was wondering if this is what most histories are based on (apart from other nations accounts)? And if this is the case is the phrase "history is written by the victor" actually correct? Could the events that we know about be skewed by the fact that mostly the "losers" were writing the history?