15 years ago someone mentioned to me there were those who didn't think that there was any historical basis for Jesus. I read a lot about pagan god-men and then found Price, Doherty and, ultimately, Wells.

I had come to the conclusion that there was probably some unknowable peripatetic cynic-influenced apocalyptic rabbi that formed the foundation for the Mark's gospel (or what it was based on) and that Paul probably came from a different tradition, and the two somehow merged.

When Ehrman came out with his book, I was unimpressed with his scholarship (I had been a big fan up to the time) and his arrogance and dismissiveness of the mythicists, but saw no reason to alter my view.

Carrier came out with his book, and I frankly didn't pick it up, because the idea of applying Bayes Theorem to this question didn't seem to add anything. A friend urged me to read it anyway saying that the Bayes stuff was a red herring, that it is the historical scholarship in the book that differentiates it from everything else.

Well now, I've read it...and, I gotta say, ignoring the statistical stuff, the historical scholarship seems to fit much better with a minimal mythicist point of view than a minimal historicist.

I am wondering if there are historians out here who have read Carrier and Ehrman (among others) and can opine on the historical methods they use and the validity of their analytical techniques in coming to the individual conclusions they use to support their overall findings.

What say you?

We currently make the distinction between the Republic and the Empire based on when several titles (Imperator, Dictator, Augustus, Caesar) were consolidated into one office, at least partially. How did Roman citizens of those times change the way they refer to the political entity of Rome? What are the different ways they referred to their "Empire" over time?

Thanks in advance.

I can't seem to understand Japan's reasoning for declaring war on Britain after Pearl Harbor when at that point the US and Britain were not allies. Hitler did not seem to know that the Japanese were planning this attack (although he did welcome it after the fact) either, so it doesn't seem like there was any agreement between Japan and Germany before hand to declare war on both the United States and Britain before Pearl Harbor had taken place.

Eventually it seems that the U.S. and Britain were bound to be allies anyways after Germany declared war on the U.S. as well, but how could Japan have counted on that before Germany even knew of Pearl Harbor? It just seems to me like it would have been a wiser move to have not declared war on Britain until Germany and Japan had both agreed to declare war on their enemies. Not only that but it seems like Britain would have been less willing to dedicate resources to the Pacific theater if there was no immediate threat to them had Japan left them out if it, which from what I can tell would only serve to benefit Japan until they were able to defeat the Americans first.

Did Japan hope to grab British territory and resources as well?

Did they count on cooperation with Germany following the declaration of war on Britain?

I'm sure everyone who's reading this has seen at least one article decrying texting, television or blogging as the death of intelligent communication/interaction. What I'm curious about is if this is a new cultural trend or have new forms of communication always been met with similar resistance?

Were newspapers or radio ever similarly considered? Was there push back against the printing press after it made hand copied books irrelevant? Did someone diss the written word because it allowed for people to read Beowulf without having to listen to the man who remembered the story word for word?

A couple years ago I visited France and in the Louvre they had on display the French crown. I was thinking, during the Revolution and in the time following it, I find it hard to believe that it wasn't stolen, taken apart, and sold jewel by jewel. How did it manage to survive intact?

Related, when and how did the concept of citizenship become standard? When was it that people couldn't just travel to another country, find work and settle down without needing permission from the government?

I know this question seems oddly specific, but I have a very specific reason to ask it: I once met a WWII veteran who said this happened. However, I've never been able to find any documentation of it.

This woman was a Free French fighter, and as she tells it, she was away from her unit's base (a château, somewhere in the occupied North IIRC) when it came under attack by a band of German-aligned Gurkhas, killing most or all of the fighters inside (I forget which). I believe she said the Gurkhas had been turned in North Africa.

This woman was later decorated for her role in recovering downed Allied fighter pilots earlier in the war (I've seen the commendation), so it's not like she'd have much reason to make up other things. And the story seems too specific to be one of those half-accidental embellishments that come with old age. However, as I said, my (cursory) searches haven't turned up any records of Gurkhas fighting for the Germans, although I do know the two groups indeed fought in North Africa. Is this a known occurrence, is it a missing chapter from the history books, or should I assume this sweet old lady lied to me?

I was wondering if any historians knew of an easily-accessible family tree of Charlemagne, showing his descendants into the current era. I know that there's a 'fact' floating around that a certain percentage of Europe is related to him at this point, but I'm more interested in legitimate, documented descendants than, "and this guy probably had a few kids with some village whores, too" kind of descendants.

If this isn't the appropriate place to ask, I'm sorry.

Like what type of guns could it withstand?

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but decided to give it a shot.

I've been under the impression that legions were equipped and paid for out of pocket by the consul/proconsul who mustered them. Did the same principle extend to government officials carrying out civil duties?

For example, when a governor wanted to build an aqueduct or road in his province, did he need to ask the Assemblies back in Rome to release tax money to him? Or did he use personal funds/taxes gathered from his own province? Same question applies to building temples, stadiums, and other public works in Rome itself.

When a general enriched Rome by conquering new lands, who was specifically being enriched? Legionaries carting home looted goods/gold/slaves? The general himself carting home LOTS of looted gold/goods/slaves? Or did the general cart the loot home and hand it over to some government body for storage?

When a client king paid tribute to Rome, where did his money go? To a big pile of gold in a vault under the Senate building? To the general who conquered him in the first place? Who gets the money if the general has died of old age or been exiled/disgraced by a political scandal? Same question applies to fully integrated provinces.

Who pays for the bread and circuses? Where is he getting that money and who is he giving it to?

So, while i was in the army, i noticed that the unit numbers (66th MI BDE, 101st INF, etc.) seemed to have random numbers. For example, we have had 1st-9th INF DIV, skipped 10th, there was 11th, then skip to 17th, then 19th, then 23rd-49th, skip 50th, and so on.

Of all the divisions the army has had, it seems the numbers we still have are arbitrarily. We have 1st-4th, then skip to the 25th (for active service). What happened, why were the ones that were chosen to be kept, kept?

It's all so famous and romanticized now, with people like Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein and so on gadding about all over the place, getting into boxing matches with each other, drinking themselves to death, having affairs, writing books, touring around drunkenly, etc. It defines a whole section of the American artistic past in a way.

But what was contemporary French and specifically Parisian opinion of all this? Were they glad to have these high-living Americans hanging around all the time? Were people upset by their lifestyle? Were French versions of their writings popular at the time?

Also, which army was the first to require its soldiers to shave their heads to prevent an outbreak of lice?

Hi all. I'm just beginning my PhD thesis on women of colour in the USA, and how constructed stereotypes have affected their activism and organising around reproductive and sexual health rights in the later-twentieth. Can anyone think of any decent sources (particularly secondary literature) that might give some information on stereotypes surrounding women of colour, and how they have been constructed? In particular, I'm finding it difficult to come across anything written about non-African-American women of colour, so anything in that area would be really useful!

Many thanks in advance! :)