I know that Robespierre was an unapologetic advocate of revolutionary terror. The impression I got is he acknowledged it as a messy process but one he believed was fundamentally just -- that peoples' justice isn't handed down by courts and administrators.

But I also read that by the late days of the Reign of Terror, he had largely withdrawn from administration in the Committee for Public Safety, and that after his execution, much of the committee overplayed Robespierre's role as a chief ideologist into that of a single totalitarian dictator, to deflect responsibility on to the dead man.

How much of this is supported by fact? Also, what's a good radically-aligned history of the Revolution? It's very easy to find English people tut-tutting about the whole thing, but David Andress's "The Terror" is the only account I've seen that tries to approach the Revolution from another perspective.

What exactly is this tribute?

"From Sardis Xerxes sent heralds to all to all the Greek states, except Athens and Sparta, demanding the signs of submission earth and water." - The Ancient Greeks a Critical History, Fine

In every depiction of asking for the tribute Fine just says Earth and Water but never describes what exactly this was.

Can someone explain it to me?

Hi there historians, would you be so kind as to explain where the myths of fae come from? i know that they are the Irish realm of faeries, nymphs, gnomes, elves, etc, but i am not so sure as to the origins, apart from hearing it was pagan/alchemist is origin. Can you guys clear this up for me, and possibly explain where and why they had these theoretical models of this other realm? thanks!

I'm curiously about how effective masks and equipment worked, how long it lasted, and the general effect it had on those who survived it.

Examples of this today are Bill Nye vs Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins vs George Pell.

People in the 80s thought the human race would eradicate itself with nuclear weapons. Today the specter of global warming and rising inequality dominate Western social discourse. I'm wondering: did similar, negative views of the future exist prior to the modern era? How have they changed throughout time? Has our perspective inherited anything from them?

As the title says, I'm curious as to things like attitudes to Jews or Nazism in Germany (either East or West) post-war rather than a governmental level. (Like striking down Nuremburg Laws. How in favour of this were the Germans)

Was there continued discrimination against the Jews by Vigilantes enforcing laws removed by the Allied Occupation? Did a lot of people still fly Nazi flags despite any

laws? Did people still support Nazism even after it was made illegal?

I've always thought it didn't change overnight. Just because the Nuremburg Laws were gone, doesn't mean people would immediately drop any opinions they had generated in the last 12 years of Nazi power?

I ask this because I remember watching a video explaining why the way we hold our elections eventually widdles down the number of parties to two and I was wondering if there was any historical evidence of this in the United States or elsewhere.

It's a beautiful painting and all, but I can see how it's the greatest painting ever made.

So, why is it arguably the most famous painting in the world?

North Korea is seen as one of the most brutal regimes in earth, often compared to Nazi Germany. But how does it compare with more ancient kingdoms with absolute rulers? It seems to me that in ancient times, torturing, killing and raping innocent people was the norm.

Is living under the Kim Family rule worse then say, living under Vlad the Impaler?

More specifically, how much will my diet change depending upon where I am stationed? What is rationed for me by the empire? What am I likely to find or purchase on my own?

Looking on Wikipedia at some WW1 battles, and under the German Empire it noted the separate flags of Saxony, Bavaria and Prussia. Did these states have separate armies? How much autonomy did they have under the German Empire?

or any "foreign race"?

A friend stated today that Native American tribes shared food and clothing with each other and lived in harmony and were not at war with each other. I find this hard to believe. What is the truth?

This is more a methodological question. I understand that historical accounts come from multiple different types of sources, but I'm wondering what historical information, if any, is typically taken from something like the Iliad, the Odyssey, plays by Euripides, "historicsl" musings during Platonic Dialogues, etc.? Are there any ideas in those works that have been accepted as historically true? And if so, what criteria is used to separate out the artistic, the allegorical, etc. from the more direct historical accounts.

The Trojan war is an example, most of what we know about that is through poetic accounts, but it also constitutes in the minds of most people a historical event that unfolded generally in the way imparted to us. Yet I seem to remember archeological evidence popping up relatively recently that challenged some ideas about it. But as historians, how much do you take from the stories themselves to be at least relatively accurate?