I mean like I remember when Britain legalized gay marriage a few years back, a lot of the couples who came forward were clearly in their 30s or older and had presumably been together for years. I'm thinking of that sort of thing

... Or in any other pre-modern city for that matter. Considering the fact that Rome was an incredibly large city for its time, and had large social differences, quite a lot of immigration, lots of connections with distant provinces, did the local latin evolve in different ways for different social segments?

I figured this could of happened but I've never heard anything about it before.

It seems like it would have been a lot easier to enslave other Europeans rather than to risk ones life to go to Africa to find people. Also, wasn't there quite a bit of historical inter-European slavery, while I'm guessing african slaves were rarer.

I just saw one with a tiny hole in the middle while at the airport and realized there's no good reason for them to be as big as they are, smaller hole would be more tp for volume of roll

One of the things that I love about history is that it destroys the melodramatic worldview that people often have about things and in school a study of historiography showed the "greyness" of the world. I'm bombarded in the media and from my society to hate Saddam Hussein, I don't know the guy, I've never researched about him and thus I've pretty much become indoctrinated from since the Iraq War started (when I was like 7) to hate the man. Apparently he's a militant dictator who like hitler used his power to exterminate a certain group of people.

My 8th grade religious teacher who was a very devout catholic though said something rather against the mainstream view I had been fed. He told me that Saddam Hussein had actually been a very great leader who really helped his country to modernize and also did much to fix 3rd world problems in his country at the time. Also apparently Saddam was an honest man. Nice.

What's the verdict of the historians of reddit? Any good history books on the subject? If possible, I'd like to know the various historical schools of thought regarding the subject.

More specifically, how did the innovations that sprouted from his flight across the Atlantic affect the science and industry of aviation in America, and the world? (if at all)

Thank you.

I have the book about congos History, but its very in-depth, and would take too long of a time to read. I need some easy to reach sources to get some background information about the different periods of colonization, the resources in congo and their use, plus some side-info on Henry Morton Stanley, and Leopold.

If you want to help me, man, i could kiss you. But dont let that put you of, its positive gesture. Female historians might have something to look forward to though :D

Surprised to see this wasn't in the FAQ, I hope this question isn't too simple or "dumb".

Small businesses like barbershops or grocery stores were obviously necessary in the USSR, like they were in any developed nation at the time. How were these started? Could any Soviet worker decide to start a barbershop? Did the state decide where they were placed and how they were run?

Asked this in r/askhistory but got no response. Little did I know I was mistaking that sub for this one. Anyway, I have been really interested in the subject of their lives in exile recently and would like a book on the subject. Any recommendations?

I am mostly referring to secondary education but it has always seemed to me that any history since WWII, at least American history, is covered in a fraction of the time compared to other events in history. I'd be interested to know if this is also true in other countries.

I'm curious because IMO I feel most of our society has very little empirical knowledge (other than what our parents have imparted on us) of what has happened in the last 60 years. Educators tend to spend weeks on the revolution, the civil war, Jefferson, Lincoln and Washington but when it comes to Vietnam, political/racial tensions in the 60s/70s, Nixon, Reagan and even Clinton, the majority of younger people who didn't live through it really have no clue.

I'm very interested in the reasons for why this might be. Bias of the people writing the curriculum? Is the jury still out? While I love all history, it seems to me that some of the most important history is that which directly affects why our society is the way it is today.

Please let me know if this has been answered before or if this is suited for a different sub.

This question has bugged me for years. I've always assumed that they would band together in groups based on who's lord was who, but I do wonder if all the ones who, say, carried axes got into one group and all the ones who carried swords and shields got into another. I know that archers were separate, but I don't know about spearmen or swordsmen, and if they were kept separate from one another, or if it was more disorganized than that?

How did the ancient Greeks think Greece, the world and the cosmos came to be?

i.e. How did English Culture change going into World War One, from the Victorian to the modern?