If I were to become a dictator, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't butcher people merely for disagreeing with me or insulting me. I'd still maintain human rights, but all the better known dictators severely violate those. So, has there ever been a lesser known dictator who brought his country forward and didn't violate human rights? (Especially freedom of speech, wich usually goes out the window first when a dictatorship steps into place).

Thank you and my apologies for language and grammar mistakes, English is not my mother tongue.

I've often wondered why it is that many people can recall from memory the names of many Greek gods, and their histories and myths, but very few people know the same amount about Roman gods.

Sure, people might know Jupiter, Mars and Venus, but only really the names.

How is it that despite the Romans having a far more prolonged, direct exposure to many more people, the Greek gods are so much better known?

Having to put a heavy mail all day already feels really uncomfortable for a guy. I can't imagine how uncomfortable it is for women, especially if they have big breasts. High-ranked figures may have her armors customized to their liking, but how about lower-ranked soldiers?

While talking about Medieval war chronicles and how there were warriors able to kill bunches of their enemies, GRR Martin claimed that a Medieval knight would be fighting peasants with sticks. Which is obviously another use of the view of Medieval battles being armies of knights and press ganged rabbles of peasant levies. Which I know that going from the available evidence isn't the case for the majority of pitched battles. Especially since mass levies didn't come around until after the Medieval era.

So, is this another Victorian myth? I've seen it in other cases too.

I am reading The Indians of Texas by University of Texas professor W.W. Newcomb, and while it has some interesting information, there's some persistent terminology going on. He uses words like "savages," "barbaric," "primitive" and other shudder-inducing terms. He defends them in one breath, but seemingly demeans them the next. How do you interpret sources and authors who seem to a product of their times?

Was there trade and communication between the islands? Was there wars and empires, controlling multiple islands?

When did all the separate factions appear in the Ancient Roman sport of chariot racing? was it a gradual shift to more "teams" or was it an official decree? Who was in charge of these factions? Any good books or websites on the sport would be appreciated as well.

I've heard this stated so many different times on Reddit and elsewhere on the internet with nobody ever able to provide a legitimate source.

I personally don't believe it - their experiments just sound like sick torture to me but I am curious to finally see if there may be some truth to this.

Thanks.

Surely there was no reason to do that? Nobody was threatening the 3rd Reich in 1939.

It sounds like white supremacist rambling to me, but I know next-to-nothing about the Mediterranean slave trade.

Hotels seem so expensive today. How much did people have to pay for a night at an inn? In the books, people pay some coins but I have no idea how much that is compared to the cost of buying food or transportation. Did they usually have a private room and what were the accommodations like? Thank you!

We adopted a senate, just trying to understand with having thrown off a king we would keep a president.

Hello,

I'm currently trying to find a job, but careers interested in history majors with little skills outside the field are scant. However, I'm not quite sure if grad school is the way to go for me either. Any suggestions?