I have a good background understanding of this period but would like to delve further into it before I start the course. What books or documentaries would you recommend reading/watching to give me an edge on others in my class, thanks

Why or why not?

The sources can be written such as the cyropaedia or archeological.

Hello kind historian. I am currently writing a script that stars a shy History Teacher who is in desperate need to regain his students respect. The climax of the story has Matt, the History Teacher, dress up as Abe Lincoln and win back his students.

He is speaking as Lincoln and is trying to be inspirational and informative at the same time. The kids he is speaking to are in HIGH SCHOOL.

Can you please help?

EDIT: I need help coming up with what a high school history teacher, acting like Lincoln, would say to win his students back. Something that covers a high school curriculum.

Why were Cicero's private letters preserved? Did he have them published? Did an admirer take it upon him (or her)self? Where did and how did Petrarch find them?

Do we know the answers to any of these questions?

A large part of Nazi ideology involves the "master race" and the fundamental idea that aryans were better than everyone else. With the population being given this information, how did the Nazis justify an alliance with two countries who don't fit the "master race?"

I have a fondness for Roman poetry and books, and I have realised that it seems that certain books gained fame immediately and were widely read. Considering the Romans did not have a printing press how did the manufacturing and distribution of books work? My impression is that in the middle ages books were incredibly rare and valuable and took an immense skill to create. So how is it that Martial can declare in an opening Epigram:

"May I present myself--the man

You read, admire and long to meet,

Known the world over for his neat

And witty epigrams. The name

Thank you, earnest fan,

For having granted me the fame

Seldom enjoyed by a dead poet

While I'm alive and here to know it."

Is this just literary bravado, or did he really have an empire wide audience? If so the book industry must have been a behemoth of complexity. In short my questions are: To whom did a poet sell his manuscript? Was he paid a lump sum or royalties? How did the manufacturing and distribution work? Was there a decent enough living to be made with writing (Martial enjoys complaining of his unproductive and barren farm and shitty apartments in rome) or was it all for prestige? How quickly could one earn literary fame? How extensive would that fame have been; would a illiterate urban worker be aware of who were the major poets? Thank you for your replies.

I'll accept results from any country/period of time since this doesn't seem to be something that would be too affected by culture or historical context.

Even in today's world it is shown that not getting enough nutrition when young will hinder thinking skills later in life. Did this cause most commoners to be stupid ( at least compared to us)?

Cortes managed to put together cavalry, but did he have pack animals in his train? Did the conquistadors typically have pack animals in their expeditions?

I recall that Francis Drake raided the Spanish mule trains, so the Spanish clearly had a pack animal system in place by the 1570s. When did this start in the Spanish Americas? Were there large mule importation / breeding efforts? How were these systems put in place?

I was sitting in history class yesterday, and my professor alluded to the fact that the many Great Flood stories of ancient civilizations could be attributed to a time when sea levels rose, causing the Atlantic to spill over the Straights of Gibraltar, filling up the Mediterranean. Could the fact that so many civilizations have stories of Great Floods be attributed to this event?

The general european catholic resentment for this alliance can be easily picked up by reading the wikipedia article. However, what were the consequences of this alliance for the Ottoman diplomacy in Asia?

Did muslim rulers have some kind of ideological, principled opposition to an alliance "between the Lily and the Crescent"?

Was there any notable skepticism, opposition or outright hostility to this alliance among the Ottoman court? If so, did it tone down over the 200 years the alliance lasted?

I am teaching Oklahoma History this year for the first time, and it seems to be a pet project of one the parents of my students. She seems convinced that it proves that the Vikings explored Oklahoma. I am skeptical of those claims, but since I had never heard of it until she mentioned it, I thought I would ask the fine historians here what they thought, especially since this subreddit always provides sources that are more trustworthy than just "Wikipedia says it's probably a hoax."

This might not be the right place to post this question, as it's a bit meta and ultimately about semantics.

My question came from a discussion about Genghis Khan, wherein one party asserted that he was an "empire builder" and another person asserted that he was a "conqueror".

I understand that the debate also comes down to someone's point of view. One person's occupying force is another's peacekeeping force; someone's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, etc.

But in this case, I think there is a distinction to be made between conquerors and empire builders... I'm just having trouble making it. So, historians of reddit, is there a fundamental difference between an empire builder and a conqueror, or are the two terms two sides of the same coin?

I've been wondering this since warfare was a common thing during the medieval era, and one was likely to be in a war than not during the 18th century. With that in mind, and taking into account basic human psychology, then we can assume PTSD must have been a fairly common thing, but I don't know how many sources detail it. Are there good sources on how common such a thing was?

Having recently read a few Russian classics, I've remembered that this mastodon of paper pushing Chinovniks was something I've wanted to know more on for some time. There was even talk of medals being awarded to the bureaucrats, they even had tiers of sorts (13 or so if i recall correctly) according to one's station and level of performance.

So, are there any well written works on the subject?

How did cavemen go from animalistic sounds to Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Roman, etc?

When a language first popped up, how did people all agree to a single language? Throughout history, we can see that humans are stubborn, and many are not willing to change what they know. Was it difficult to bring everyone together and just say, "This is our language, and these are our words."? Did the languages start out as a religion would, and spread in the same manner, or was their some other method used?

I'm currently in Italy (first time) and to say that I'm blown away by the medieval and Renaissance art is a major understatement. But I notice that the earlier stuff, 12th century and thereabouts, depict individuals with a universally bland expression regardless of their function. For instance a (future) saint being flayed alive has the same unremarkable, dour expression as his torturers and any angels in attendance. Likewise depictions of the Virgin, and so on. Great advances in art came with the Renaissance, but before that what were the artists attempting to portray with this bland facial expression regardless of setting? For that matter even the earlier Renaissance pieces, though showing better understanding of perspective and the human form, also have similar, expressionless faces.

It seems like during the American Revolution, there were a lot of militias around. How did they figure into the command/organizational structure of the Continental Army? Were they autonomous, or under the nominal command of a regular Army officer (or somewhere in-between)?