My textbooks keep repeating the idea that economists didn't expect staflation in the 1970s, and thought it was impossible. But cost-push inflation seems so obvious today. Was the idea that economists were blinded really true? If so, what ideas were so entrenched that did not allow for stagflation?

(I wanted to ask r/Economics, but they don't allow text posts...)

Comparing how much each one contributed to the Queen's activity, Albert got involved much more in the running of the monarchy than Phillip did (does). There are probable many reasons why Phillip is less active than Albert (e.g. personalities, loss of empire), but can anyone give the main reasons ?

I heard someone on the radio a few years ago, commenting that Phillip wanted to do more, as Albert did, but that there were forces around Elizabeth actively excluding him from any important stuff. Why ?

By "national newspaper", I mean something like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or USA Today. If I live in Los Angeles, I can still buy a copy of the New York Times on the street that will have the same articles and pictures as a copy bought in New York, and it presumably would've been printed that morning on a press in the LA area. It's not so much the content of the articles that I was curious about, but the pictures - how did the newsroom in New York get the photos they were using to the other side of the country? Would an extraordinarily high quality fax machine have done the trick? Something more complicated, like sending a signal like a television?

I suppose a related question would be how were photos of international events brought back to be printed alongside their corresponding stories?

The Roman legionaries and their officers of the classical Roman era were fierce, brave and resourceful warriors and soldiers. They were courageous and devoted to winning at any cost. These qualities enabled ancient, Rome and the Roman people to not only defend themselves from invaders like Hannibal, but to make successful forays into adjoining areas like cisalpine and transalpine Gaul. The present day Italians do not appear to be the same people's who created or improved so much technology and could wage total war. They do not appear to be the same people who could lose 77,000 soldiers in one battle and still win the war. *lastly, I once read something to the effect that the roman race was bred put or mostly died out of the Italian peninsula.

Or basically what consisted of an early humans diet during the hunter-gather phase?

Hi!

I'm born and raised in Denmark, and therefore I have heard ALOT about the vikings and our ancient history. But lately I've been thinking about art and ground-breaking artists.

In ancient Europe, Rome and Greece had a lot of ground-breaking artists and philosophers. The list is very long. But weren't the scandinavian vikings around for almost the same amount of time as Rome and Greece?

Well, the thing is, here in Denmark, we always hear about how insane and extreme the vikings were war-wise, but didn't they have any big artists and philosophers? ..or was it all about war and plundering?

The question in some sort of TL;DR, would be something along the line of; how come almost all the biggest artists and philosophers where based in Southern Europe, and why didn't we have that many of them up here at that time?

:)

-- (if there are any spelling- and/or grammarerrors, so sorry. English is my secondary language) :)

Since the area around Berlin was Soviet(it was, right?), how would West Berlin even trade with anyone outside? Somekind of deal to get permission through Soviet territory? I've no idea how that worked.

Also, with same relation to the territory; how would it even be possible to take a part of Berlin but not the area up to West-Berlin?

I'm talking about before the 1900s. Maybe from the cultures that practice Shamanism? I would like to know how they would describe the experience as opposed to someone in modern day.

I'm thinking really about those in the Russian Far East. Like the Yakuts, etc.

I searched 'red army native' and didn't get anything back, so I hope this question hasn't been asked before.

Like the phoenicians and greeks did? Was it only something that city states did?

I guess it'd also be interesting to hear about other democratic election histories as well.

How did cricket come to have such a following in India as opposed to other traditionally British sports, such as football or rugby.

Presumably, up to the modern era, captains and admirals would have exercised wide authority in situations demanding immediate action. Their superiors on land or overseas wouldn't be able to influence events after the last opportunity to dispatch orders by paper or spoken word passed. But since the development of radio, satellite, video technology, etc. it has become increasingly easy for a home authority (such as the Pentagon) to receive instantaneous updates and offer new instructions. Has this speed of information therefore decreased the authority and prestige of naval command over the years? Thank you.

Watching the Soviet Storm series on WW2 and "leftenant" has been said about 20 times now. I am aware of the rank of lieutenant, by why are they suddenly using the term "leftenant"?

What are the do's and don'ts of a resume in the field of history?

I have an opportunity to work as a historian, and I would like to know if there is anything that would make for a good resume for a position in the field.

The job position seems to entail mostly research and record management. These will obviously be the focus of my resume, but is there anything else I should add that I might not be thinking of?

Any help is appreciated.

I've scoured and researched all I could for this answer but I couldn't find a modicum of information about it. My university class was asked to compare the middle ages with modernity using Monty Python's The Holy Grail as a satirical reference. When the "Bring Out Your Dead" scene finished I wasn't sure if they actually did that, burned them, or buried them. Any help would be fantastic!

I get that it made Russia pull back all of its forces for two years, but wasn't Prussia still being attacked by three countries at once? Did it really make that big of a difference that Prussia was able to prevail?

As a non-historian I see this web site being sourced quite a bit. What exactly is it? Is there a way to get at those juicy morsels of knowledge without going through a pay wall?