Most of us know that Hitler was rejected from art school before attempting to take over the world. However, Vienna is in Austria, and Hitler annexed Austria. What did Hitler do with the school after he took over Austria?

"Atalanta, swift of foot, beaming eyes who rejected her equals, avoided marriage with men who eat bread" — Petrie Papyri (ed. Mahaffy), Pl. III. 3:

I know athletes ate an unusual amount of meat in Ancient Greece and Rome. But I doubt many ate no bread.

What did she mean about rejecting her equals? What would eating bread tell her about a potential husband?

I think it's lost on most Americans how strange American conservatism is. Maybe "strange" isn't the best word, but the views that constitute American conservatism don't usually go together. Before World War II, Europe's upper-classes and nobility were quite skeptical of capitalism, and believed it threatened the "natural order" of the nation, so to speak. I think a lot of this had to do with the nobility obtaining its status by birth or by inheriting land, and an entrepreneur or businessman could threaten that status by finding success in industry or banking. In any case, Benjamin Disraeli emphasized one-nation conservatism, which supported government programs for the working class. Otto von Bismarck, the 19th century's archetypal conservative, instituted Europe's first social safety net. Fascism, which grew as a right-wing response to communism, emphasized social cohesion, hence the "socialism" in National Socialism. And after World War II, Christian democracy took over Western Europe. Christian democracy emphasized conservative social values from the mid-40s through the mid-60s, but also supported a strong safety net and workers' rights. After Christian democracy, I believe Europe's right became more "libertarian," and focused on free-market capitalism, but without the religious values and war mongering. Today, right-wing populists like Marine Le Pen, are very secular, and, if anything, oppose unfettered capitalism. So why did the American right take a completely different course? How did it come to be defined by support for the military, taxation and spending cuts, and Christian social values?

I'm gonna be done with high school real soon, and I really like history and would like to pursue it in the future. I wanna know what the experience is like and if it is worth it or not (I mean my extended "family" told me I shouldn't go this way).

Thanks!

Hi! A few years ago I went to Georgia for a nice visit, and noticed that there were a lot of Soviet era hotels and recreational facilities that seemed to be made for tourists. A friend of my family who grew up in the USSR also told us that people would often go to Georgia on holiday. How would one be granted permission to travel there? Could most people afford a vacation? Would tourists be allowed to visit urban areas and heritage sites or only "resorts"?

I'm reading the book 'Revolutiob Song' by Russell Shorto, in it George Washington is described as a mediocre leader who caused the Seven Years war by mistake and lost more battles than he won. Is Washington seen as a good militarily leader or was he more a political leader?

So, to clarify my question a bit, were there East Germans, whether a part of the government, or part of a civilian movement, that wanted to see the end of communism within East Germany, but also did not want to reunify with West Germany?

Most people seem to correlate the fall of The Berlin Wall as the beginning of the end for East Germany as a nation, but I've always found that history is never so cut and dry.

Reintegrating East Germany into West Germany would seemingly be a massive undertaking. From infrastructure, to merging armed forces, to the political enfranchisement of roughly 16 million East Germans in the West German political system, the task seems very daunting.

So, was there ever an effort to just not bother reunifying, and leave East Germany as a separate, sovereign, non-communist state? If so, did it have any traction?

Well I've heard some people say this and it is haunting my mind. I would love to see professional historians prove this wrong. Thank you.

I wonder when was the concept equivalent to our modern 'time zones' discovered, or at least that the time at one place is not the same as everywhere else.

Meaning that people became aware of differences for 'local true high noon', or in other words that the local time for the zenith of the sun would systematically differ from place to place on a line from East to West — depending on what we now call the meridian.

I'm guessing that that discovery came at about the time where instant communication was created (Telegraph/radio) or when at least people could move fast enough around the globe to not take days to cross what would be an hour time difference today.

So is there any recorded moment in history where that time difference was discovered? Am I right to think that this was unknown before information could travel fast enough that it would be known that when you type something from Paris to Moscow, even if for you its the evening the person you are writing to might be already gone to bed?

To rectify: I'm not asking for when was latitude figured out. I'm asking when was the realisation made that the time where you are is not the same as everywhere else on earth.

It seems generally accepted that by the Fifth Century, the economy of Ancient Rome had collapsed, followed by the Dark Ages with considerably less productivity and prosperity. By the turn of the millennium, feudalism had provided some stability, but the economy didn't return to its previous levels until the Renaissance.

Are there any actual numbers supporting this? Are there estimates for European GDP over this entire timeframe, for example?

I sometimes read about medieval battles in which armies of thousands marched at each other and think about what it must have felt like for those at the fronts of each side. In films and television, we're conditioned to regularly see our heroes fighting on the frontlines and surviving (especially looking at Game of Thrones), but when I imagine the carnage that must have happened in actual historical battles, I can't imagine a single person who was leading the charge making it more than a couple of minutes. Am I wrong to think that? And it begs the second question - if the reality was that you were very likely to die if you had the misfortune of being placed at the front, why did the entire frontline go through with it, and how did enough men keep fighting for anyone to sustain an army, since eventually surely most soldiers would have the misfortune of being placed at the front?

Sorry if this is a really stupid question - I am absolutely nothing close to a historian, but this is something I've been thinking about lately. I'm very interested in what smarter people than I have to say.

Which persons and events from the Bible are real and there is no room for doubts?

Hello, Historical Geniuses. I need your help. What would have been some historical reasons why a monarch or a ruler would banish or send away one of their children in dishonor? Possibly what would cause a leader to maybe even disown a descendent? I guess I'm looking for reasons more than having a child out of wedlock.

Even just a few leaders/rulers to look at would be an excellent jumping-off point. I'm really looking for a historical example to include in a novel I'll be pitching to agents in the next little while. I've been told the separation between my queen and my princess is not quite believable and needs some more concrete information. Yet, it doesn't seem like there are many rulers who actually sent their children away after the child pulled some kind of stunt.

Thanks in advance for pointing me in the right direction!

I'm reading SPQR, and it mentions how Cicero would send letters from Cilicia back home to Rome. I'm so curious about the logistics of how the letters went from point A to point B and was delivered to the right place accurately