I just made a Mozart Pandora station and I know his teacher was Hayden, but I don't know Hayden's teacher. Who is the oldest composer we know, what music of his do we know of, and do we know of anyone who played it?

If the tradition of nomadism, horse archery, and generally everything you associate with the Mongols' unprecedented conquest goes back centuries before Genghis, why didn't horse nomads from the steppe terrorize Europe sooner? What was keeping the Scythians or the Xiongnu from (pardon my use of a colloqialism) roflstomping their way through the pre-medieval societies of their times?

Was it just a matter of there being no interest in Westward conquest? Were they too disunified? Or did Genghis' Mongols have some military advantage that the earlier steppe people didn't?

Have anyone watch the series and can commentate on if/how accurate the series is?

I understand that a lot of people survived on creating their own wares or as a part of a trade, and I understand the process of how that'd happen, but what about other jobs?

Let's say, in a inn, how did they hire staff? Would all staff be friends/family and thus it'd be very informal? Did a formal way of seeking employees exist, like how we have resumes these days?

More specifically, I would like to find out how did the world's population look while these two continents were up and running?

(When I say ancient Africa, I mean the Egyptians.)

I want to be an academic historian. I've read all the threads telling me not to multiple times, I've done my very best to crush my dreams and (with this subreddit's help) I've very nearly succeeded, but I still think I want to pursue this field despite the inevitable misery and poverty.

I'm studying Ancient History & Classical Languages (Greek + Latin) and either French or German, and a Diploma in Archaeology (which is essentially a third major), at a large and well-respected University in Australia (the University of Queensland). My plan at this stage is to work like a slave at enhancing every possible aspect of my historical/academic skills - knowledge, writing style and ability, languages, linguistics, archaeology, teaching, networking and social skills, community involvement & the Classics student societies, and hopefully some original undergrad research. I want to get into the best possible grad school, which, because I have British citizenship, would ideally be Oxford or Cambridge. I'm quite good with languages and if anything they're my edge over other potential historians, so at this stage I'll start adding as many languages as are relevant to my specialisation (as yet undecided) as I can. I want to then network like a freak, research and publish as much as I can, and hope that gets me where I need to go.

But I have the option of going to a top-tier university like Oxford and Cambridge now, for undergrad. I have the marks necessary to consider applying, so if we make the huge assumption that I would actually get in, is it worth it? Should I move to the other side of the world (with all of the costs involved) to do a classics degree at Oxford and start my networking now, paying probably three or four times as much for the degree, or do I stay and get a much cheaper degree from a less respected institution?

(optional further questions - I would love any and all career advice)

1 - I don't think I'm capable of learning four languages simultaneously on top of all the other work, and I'll need to pick between French and German and do the other later, which is better/more important to have now?

2 - what are some good specialisations to go into? I've gotten the impression that Hellenic & Roman history is a bit dried up and overdone, is Near Eastern/Middle Eastern the same? How about the Byzantine field? Proto Indo European?

3 - how else can I get an edge over people that I will be competing with for those frightfully scarce academic jobs? Networking, languages, writing, teaching skills, research & publications, and...?

Thanks a lot for your help.

It seems to me that to discover a new phenomenon revolutionary enough to the world of physics/chemistry/what have you so that the unit in which its measured is named after you is one of the highest honors. However, as far as I'm aware, that stopped happening after the early days of quantum physics in the 20s and 30s, and we've just discovered all the measurements. Am I wrong? Was there a discovery in the 90s of a unit measured in Johnsons?

Hendrix's time seemed to have a divide between black and white music whereas he seemed to cross that divide. I might be far off with that assessment as my knowledge of music history is not very good, but I always wondered what the reaction to him in the South was.

It's very easy to find information about the great feats of Roman engineering, but I've managed to scrounge very little information about the actual people. I know of Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder, but I'm more interested in the common engineer, like the military architecti and other immunes, and especially in civilian engineers, unaffiliated with the army.

Did the engineers who oversaw the construction of urban buildings come from the army, or vice-versa?

I'd also love any relevant (and ideally interesting) sources.

I have a set of questions below, but don't feel the need to answer all of them.

Is the idea of a "war on [blank]" unique to post-WWII American society or can it be traced to earlier eras? How does this rhetoric affect policy-making, and what might it say about how Americans view war and/or domestic politics? Is there perhaps any historical significance in the fact that we rarely hear about a war for some issue, but only on or against an issue? What exactly has a "war" on a specific social problem entailed in the past (perhaps, for example, the mass mobilization of American society and political institutions)? Is this type of rhetoric unique to the United States?

When I went to pick up my clothes for the ceremony, they kinda reminded me of what cardinals in the Catholic Church would wear.

Did bomber crews during WWII all have parachutes in the case of a mid air emergency, and if so what was the protocol for exiting the plane?

American, British, German, Japanese, Russian....curious about how the different Air Forces handled mid air emergencies.

Plutarch mentions that the captains under Romulus carried manipuli, which he seems to think the reader will have heard of. It's a bundle of grass and parts of a tree attached to a stick (reminiscent of later fasces?). Apparently the fasces were adopted from Etruria, but...the bundle of rods seems more like an impromptu weapon while the sticks with grasses and shrubs seems...odd. Anyone know if it had a purpose? Was it symbolic?

I know that certain unusual items (like brooms) often had military metaphoric significance (we'll sweep the enemy away)...is this similar? Anyone know?

Hello,

The history of how the US treated those with AIDS when it first started to show up is well known and depressing, but did other (and perhaps less conservative) countries have these types of pains when AIDS was being seen in their populations? If there needs to be a restriction, perhaps looking at just Europe.

Thank you

More specifically, how did South Korea's economy recover, after having being ravaged by war as recently as the 60's, to become a world leader in terms of technology and innovation?

Great Power relationships in the 100 years between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the start of World War 1 are often talked about in terms of an Imperial Power's "prestige". What exactly was prestige? Was it a contemporary term, or is it something that modern historians invented? Was prestige more than just an appraisal of a nation's military and economic might?