Given his brutal nature, it seems odd that Stalin would be given this pet name.

I stipulate that a territory "changes hands" when a polity actually administers it. For example, territory which is briefly controlled by an invading military force but not administered doesn't count.

Edit: I meant to limit the scope of my question to the 20th century.

I've often heard that Justinian's conquests put a financial and military strain on the empire and severely weakened it. Did those conquests have any good effects? Was the prestige the only real plus?

They may have different words for numbers but (to my knowledge) they're all represented the same; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0.

Besides imported, could one get legally aged liquor immediately after prohibition ended?

They don't really spur good comments and they inadvertently inject unwanted partisan subtexts or pseudo subtexts to answers.

Did it happen after the fall, or was it branded as the roman empire from close to the beginning, or maybe somewhere in the middle?

My art history professor (a great proponent of bad history) has made many crazy statements which I know to be false about history, science, etc. However, he made a claim about stone-age societies which I find suspect but am not truly knowledgeable enough to confirm or refute.

He said we know stone-age societies (I'm sorry that's vague but he wasn't any more explicit) were matriarchal. He said that we know this because they used fertility goddesses rather than gods. I am dubious that his statement is accurate at all, but I find the reasoning particularly suspect. It seems like a big jump to go from having goddesses to being a matriarchal society. This is especially true when I consider that we often know so little about these societies. It seems like making that conclusion would just be a guess at best. It seems to me that we might just not know of their whole pantheon or we might be reading modern values where they don't exist. I also have misgivings about saying that all societies were x.

Is he right that stone-age societies were matriarchal? Is he right about his proof? Is there more evidence that actually proves his point but about which he is ignorant?

He also said that society (I apologize again for how vague he is) became patriarchal only after the advent of settled agriculture. Is this true? Do we know? Or is this just too vague to even respond to?

I realize that this is really more anthropology than history, but I thought that one of the knowledgeable people at /r/AskHistorians might be able to provide an answer anyway.

As the romans as a civilisation lasted many centuries it makes sense that the language would have changed significantly over that time.

I am wondering if the latin we see today is the last incarnation of the roman language used by the empite or whether its the latin used at the height of Rome's power from which there is likely to be a greater amount of written examples.

Bonus question. As a lot of western European languages are derived from latin. When did latin as a language stop being considered the language being spoken.

Edit: western not eastern

marcus antonius doesn't count

I was reading the Iliad and noticed a bit about Hector's mom unlocking a sacred chamber. Seems pretty astonishing that they had that level of fine craftsmanship. When did keys and locks get invented, and how long did it take before they were a reliable form of security?

I really don`t know how much say the individual enlisted man may have in where he goes, but if he COULD pick, what job is relatively safe, but also involves some sense of adventure? I guess the two extremes I am trying to avoid are paper pusher and front line assault/riflemen.

I am wondering how do historians community rate the military ability of the military leaders? Is there a consensus opinion, for example on General Montgomery, Rommel, MacArthur? Or are there different school of thoughts?

I'm currently attempting to write a paper for my History Seminar dealing with German propaganda during the Third Reich and I am finding it insanely hard to find peer reviewed books and articles. I have used JSTOR and Ebsco to try and find peer reviewed sources on this topic, but am coming up empty handed. What are some tricks that you all use to find credible sources that have peer reviews?

Very overt, conscious racism seems to be on the decline in modern America, but even people who consider themselves to be colorblind or racially fair often have subconscious racist feelings that guide their action.

So this made me wonder: in the past when overt racism was more apparent, did people consider themselves racist? If they did, was it a label of pride?