Hey everyone, I'm a student teacher and I am creating a unit plan on Ancient Greece. I am currently working on a lesson on the Peloponnesian War with particular emphasis on Thucydides and the validity of primary sources. My plan is to have students discuss and assess select speeches from the text that address the causes of the war and the perspectives of its main participants (chiefly Athens and Sparta). I read Thucydides about three years ago and based on my recollection I have identified Pericles' funeral oration and the Melian Dialogue to be significant. However, I would like at least two more passages for students to read that address the causes of the war and the Spartan perspective. What would people suggest? For the sake of accessibility I will likely use the Project Gutenberg edition of the text, rather than a particular published version.

I've been re-reading Donald Worster's Rivers of Empire, wherein Worster uses early Mormon settlers as a case study hydraulic society, in this case, theocratic. I was trying to think about how this jives with Worster's assertion that capitalism determines use of natural resources back in his first book, Dust Bowl. Would one say that these Mormons were capitalist? (Apologies beforehand if this turns into a debate as sticky and involved as the 'Was slavery capitalist?' question!)

For a country that was conquered almost more often than Sicily, had very little in the way of land or natural resources, Britain sure did well for itself. I realize they were a strong empire due to a powerful navy and many colonies, but how exactly did they get both those things? Was it a series of big events and wars, or just really smart policies and luck?

I'm looking for book recommendations regarding the early caliphates. In particular, I am interested in learning more about what underlay their phenomenal rapid expansion against the Sassanids, Byzantines, and Western Roman successor kingdoms, among others. What was it about their military, administration, economy, etc that underlay their successes?

I minored in history but consider myself a layperson, so a book in the middle with regards to complexity would be appreciated. Examples of books I found very readable include Justinian's Flea and 1491. "India: A History" was at the upper edge of readability for me.

Thanks in advance!

I recently came across a brochure from a Soviet "tourist" shop which featured many Soviet-made goods, but also some Western products (especially alcohol and tobacco). How did they get these items?

Also, if you were an average citizen in one of these countries, was there any way you could shop there?

Resubmitting this questions with more neutral wording.

Where would the depart from? Are there any accounts from the time?

Also, were one religion more prone to except slavery? Were the Southern Colonies much different compared to Northern, specifically the Quakers who seemed much more abhorant to the idea of enslavement

i imagine the reverse situation, the soviets traveling into the west relatively uncontrolled had the capital been on the west side. Seems very precarious. It's not like they're being escorted for the entire duration of the journey. How could they agree to such a scenario?

The Italian connection makes sense, given Italy's domestic wine industry and its proximity to other centers of wine production across the Mediterranean.

How did Jews become so involved in wine selling? Were most of these Jewish merchants Italian as well?

Is this the result of Medieval scholars editing the text to coincide with Christian ideas? Is it supposed to be understood that they mean Zeus or Jupiter, since he is the most powerful god in the entire pantheon? Is it a more philosophical idea of divinity, e.g. logos?

I mean, the first two and the latter don't look at all similar to me (though Estonian looks a lot like Finnish), but the fact that they're related at all seems pretty remarkable, given the distance and the lack of other language relatives that lies between them.

Every other conquerer and world leader in history, it seems to me, is referred to by last name. Why is Bonaparte exempt from this trend?