I was told by a couple of people today that the origin of the Latin language was slaves from Greece. They said the Ancient Greek taught their slaves the language to basically enforce the fact that they were lesser than their masters.

Hello,

This is my third semester as a History major, and I feel I'm still getting a hang for how to properly study History in an academic manner. Everything from research to notes to papers takes on a different standard and feel when you attempt to undertake it seriously. That is evidential by the standards that are kept here as well as the ones that my professors ask of me.

Last semester I undertook two world history courses at one time - I like to say from Sumer to Decolonization after the Cold War - and learned that, while it may be an absolute crash course in undertaking something so massive - that I passed the courses with B's, and I go to UD, so it's pretty rigorous academically speaking here.

This semester is all American history. My courses are

America in the Early National Period (1789 - 1830ish)

Antebellum America (1830ish - 1860)

America in the 1920's.

I have approximately 12 books to read, and this is where the question for this thread comes in.

I have found a note taking system that works. I have a system where I take notes as I read and have it in a hierarchical set up - it goes by book, chapter, and then page. I feel this is suitable for taking notes on books, and having them referenced easily enough.

My question becomes how do I study history to retain the information easily? I was going over the information in my head without books - for example right now I am working on Clay, Calhoun, and Webster and trying to remember various details about each.

Is it simply repetition? How do you all study history?

The first paragraph of "Viscous Fluid Flow" by F.M. White goes something like this:

By stretching a point one could say that the study of viscous fluid flow reaches back to antiquity, for it was probably in the prehistoric times that human weaponry developed from simple sticks and stones into streamlined, weighted spears and slim, pointed, fin-stabilized arrows. One can conclude that primitive man recognised and solved in part the problem of viscous resistance.

Did he really? I always thought that innovations of early human were driven by need (e.g. the wheel). So, the development of pointed spears and arrows must have been driven by the need to hit and kill animals while hunting. The fact that such such weapons travelled longer and faster was only a side-effect, atleast that's what I thought until I came across the above quoted lines. Did the pre-historic humans developed pointed weapons because they thought it could really hurt animals or because they thought it could make them travel more effectively (as the book seems to suggest) ?

For example has anyone been too close to a test?

Were they simple nomads? Hunter gatherers? Or were there a few tribes that excelled technologically compared to the rest?

I'm having a hard time finding an unbiased history leading up to the current state of affairs. Any book references would also be much appreciated

Azerbaijan had (and still has) a much larger population and a far stronger economy than Armenia. Why did Russia support Armenia in this conflict, gaining Armenia as a loyal ally but distancing themselves from Azerbaijan? Why does Russia continue to support the Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh republic militarily and economically?

Ex. Roman Soldier with a Gaellic/Celtic/Greek/German/Phoenician wife. How were mixed raced children viewed and were there any scientific interests in the "genealogy" on the mixing of different races. The Physical characteristics of a half roman half german child must have been very noticeable.

The dialogue seems to have enjoyed some popularity during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, with Galileo, Hume, and Berkeley publishing important works in that form. By the 1800s, though, it seems to be very rare in science, and not common in philosophy either. I'm curious what led to its unpopularity and how gradual the process was. Was it already out of fashion by the time Hume published his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion?

I know its some sort of execution, but what takes place and what is the cultural history behind it?

I travelled to Romania recently and the trip has made me want to read up on Romanian history, but I'm not sure where to start. If people could recommend me a few good books, as a jumping off point, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

What civil war relatively recent books specifically focusing on the Confederacy would you recommend? Any books will do, I'm not looking for any specific topic, but I'd rather the books not be pro-confederate.

I know that Native Americans were the first slaves used in the New World but were replaced by Africans due to disease and the work conditions that the natives couldn't handle, but I couldn't imagine that Native American slavery would completely die out for a while. Would Native American slaves still be used by anyone as late as the Civil War?

Or a bit more concretely-- what was the Soviet Union's reaction? I'm sure that the involvement of the UN fighting against the Soviet-backed North Korea was controversial, but how did this change the wider world of international diplomacy?