I was watching a show where they sentenced someone to 10 years hard labor in the mines. I began to wonder what their life would be like, what hours do they work, where do they sleep, what would they eat. what is the life expectancy. Is there life beyond the mines

I'm interested to know if primitive man played more of an emotional role in raising his young than we like to imagine.

• Sorry about the title wording *

One hardly ever hears of things like The Flintstones Save Arbor Day or Charlie Brown Saves Presidents' Day. Why is it Christmas that's so often under threat, and why have stories about it being rescued from this threat become so popular? How did this trope begin?

Doesn't it have the same meaning as "it is" and "it's"? Seems quite useful to me! Tis puzzling why such word would be lost to the sands of time.

I understand it all magnified as firearms became more widespread, but no nation would go "welp guys we're not gonna use metal armor anymore", since metal armor also provided some kind of defense against firearms.

Was having an uneducated conversation about this last night and was wondering if you could shed some light.

A friend of mine stated the other day that the Romans were quite close to achieving the use of steam power, and I didn't quite believe him. While I know a few Greek mathematicians/inventors envisioned some limited steam power, to my knowledge it was never anywhere near commercially viable. Searched for the topic and didn't see anything.

I thought the film was beautiful and evocative, but I don't know much about the neolithic era. It seemed that the people in the film regarded the paintings as fine art, but is that a legitimate category for the time (or could we even know)? Also, I wanted more detail regarding the claim that Neanderthals didn't produce art (e.g., Venus statuettes). What actual evidence rules out Neanderthal cave painting? I realise I'm asking several different questions here, but any answers would be welcomed. Thank you.

De Valera is recorded as saying 'It’s my considered opinion that in the fullness of time history will record the greatness of Collins and it will be recorded at my expense.'. What do you think of the statement? I have to say that from what I have found De Valera is not seen in as great a light as Collins. De Valera did a lot of good in setting up the free state yet is largely seen as a villain due to his role during the Civil War. Do you guys think that he was right when he made the statement or would you disagree?

Can someone list for me some issues that modern day historians might consider the mysteries of classical or medieval warfare? Like, quirks about weapons, armor, or fighting in general that might have been understood by many people of the era, but that for one reason or another is controversial to modern historians.

For example, I remembering seeing a documentary that claimed we don't really know how Vikings even held their swords, because their swords had tiny hilts. I'm not sure if there's a verdict in on Viking swords yet, but I'm looking for controversies like that. Other examples I can think of are how we don't really know what Greek Fire is made of, and I'm told the Romans have a system for rotating exhausted legionnaires out of the frontline and replacing them with fresh soldiers, but we don't know how they managed that in the chaos of battle.

For instance, since 1945, no industrialised countries have engaged in total war.

I'm also having some trouble finding literature arguing against this statement.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

I heard recently that the aftermath of a battle was absolutely atrocious, with dead and dying bodies all over. It's got me curious, so I'd like to ask a few questions if I may. By the way, in this scenario, the Romans have won, the size of armies each side fielded is up to you.

• Did the Romans search for their wounded? If so, what injuries could they actually fix? (what kind of wounds usually weren't mortal?)

• What state are the bodies in? Movies tend depict battle wounds as simple splashes of blood...Just how gruesome were some of the wounds?

• Is it true that the Romans counted the number of kills for the sake of the famed Roman triumph? If so, was there a system to this?

• Lastly, if this isn't too broad of a question, would it be possible to get some sort of summary of a general "hear, see & smell?" of the entire thing?

Thanks so much for any replies.

I have to do a case study, research, inquiry thing. It is about the differing opinions of historians about an event, or topic in regards to a historical period or some sort of historical topic. Any ideas? (for example the Fischer controversy) (I would like an ancient topic)