We have the roman gladiatorial games and crucifixions not ot mention all the riots and backstabbing going on.

But what Athens? Birthplace of Democracy? Was it immune to such things as this and murder? Or does the democracy over shadow it in the recording of history?

I see things about displaced peoples camps in western Europe and many jews wanting to go/moving to western Europe or anywhere but eastern Europe. I have a hard time finding how jews were treated after their liberation in eastern Europe, or where they went.

(Let me just preface this by saying I am in no way pro Nazi. This is just a general question with no other motives whatsoever. I feel the need to say such because people always assume the worst online unless you explain away every scenario although I am quite certain I will get flamed and trolled for this question)

That being said, were the Nazis really the boogeymen historians lead us to believe? I know that history gets told by the victors, so given the allied victory over the Nazis, did we engage in a little historical revisionism? It just seems so hard to believe an entire nation would jump on-board and commit so many awful atrocities with unquestioned obedience and loyalty. I find it difficulty to reconcile such unabashed hate with the modern world and its interconnectedness.

Full quote: "Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the Earth unharmed, cloaked only in the protection of the words civis Romanus -- I am a Roman citizen. So great was the retribution of Rome, universally understood as certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens."

"There’s a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman, and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot.”

I have no desire to incite a debate about whether Jesus existed - that question is addressed in the FAQ, and the academic consensus is clearly that he did. I am currently taking a class about the history of the Catholic Church in which the teacher claimed that there is a markedly greater volume of evidence verifying the existence of Christ than that of Alexander the Great. Is this an accurate claim, and, from the perspective of professional historians, is it valid to use the (allegedly) sparse documentation for Alexander the Great's existence as a means of arguing for the historicity of Jesus?

If there were two any armies some time in, say, 200 B.C.E. that wanted to go to war, how would they find each other? Was there just a huge array of scouts set up everywhere so that every possible point is within sight?

I have a friend who recently visited Japan, and he found that Japanese citizens were simply fascinated by his American-ness. I'm sure you've heard of this phenomenon elsewhere, too; because American culture is so prevalent, people living in non-American countries will take a great interest in American people who travel abroad.

Would this hold true during the glory days of the Roman Empire? Would the average Roman citizen, traveling abroad, be well-regarded because he comes from a nation with an expansive culture that no doubt transcended local geography?

I know the answer is probably somewhere around "it depends", but would it depend on?

Edit: I suppose that the "average" Roman probably wouldn't have enough denarii to travel abroad. So maybe we're talking about the Romans that aren't filthy upper-crust rich but still well-off enough to make the occasional trip outside of the Empire?

Just curious, thank you for any answers

I fail to see what strategic advantage the Allies gained in conquering Italy. Why not just destroy the Italian navy and bypass the country entirely, invading southern France instead? If it was absolutely necessary to invade southern Europe at that time, why not invade southeast Europe? It surely wouldn't have been that much more difficult, and if we got there before the Russians, that would have prevented Soviet domination of that region after the war. What reasoning compelled the Allies to take the path that they did, rather than one of the two alternatives that I just outlined?

[Reposted in hopes of a more comprehensive answer]

I have been an avid reader of Icelandic Sagas since highschool, but I have found it very difficult to get outside information on the sagas themselves. Most of I read about the sagas (such as, for example, in Jesse Byock's Viking Age Iceland) tends to be about what the sagas tell us rather than actually about the sagas, and translation introductions tend to focus on the context of Medieval Iceland. Over half a decade of this has left me with a knarrload of questions, of which this is a selection:

1. How bad has source loss been on the sagas? The Complete Sagas of the Icelanders has about forty full Islendinga sogur and about as many thattr. How does this compare to the total output? Are there lists of sagas that we don't have? What about for the other genres?

2. What was the process of preservation and compilation of the ones we do have? was there a (I assume) nineteenth century movement to gather the ones that survived together, or have they more or less been read continuously to this day? Were they in monasteries?

3. What was their reception outside of Iceland? Was it notably higher in Norway than in Denmark and Sweden? When did people outside of Iceland begin reading them?

4. What do we know about their production? Who was writing these works? Was it monks, local elites, skalds, or all of them? If we take these works as cohesive works of literature, why don't we have names?

5. On the topic, I have seen, in descending order of confidence, the Prose Edda, Heimskringla, and Egil's Saga attributed to Snorri Sturlusson. Are any of these actually confident attributions?

6. Was Iceland the only place these were being produced? I realize this is a huge questions, but how was tiny, marginal Iceland the production site of such a breathtaking and unique body of literature?

7. Njala Saga is pretty universally considered the greatest of the Icelandic sagas, and with good reason. But how was it given this designation? Also, it seems different than the other sagas, not only in its length but also in its sensitivity of characterization and, for lack of a better word, literality. It seems more carefully composed than others, and to a certain extent rewards careful examination more. Is there any explanation for this seeming distinctiveness outside of simply artistic genius?

8. How would these have been consumed? Were they meant for oral presentation or individual study?

9. How widely known would they and the stories have been?

10. How and when did they go out of fashion? I have heard they were supplanted by Continental literature, but, for lack of a better phrasing, why?

11. The sagas often incorporate bits of skaldic poetry. Can we say how old these are? Particularly, are the bits of skaldic poetry used in the Heimskringla authentic and contemporary to the events describes?

12. Question from within the sagas themselves, who was Gudman the Powerful? He shows up in a quite a few sagas, but usually in the background. My assumption is that he was a somewhat anachronistic figure, more akin to the world of the thirteenth century than the tenth, but is that accurate?

Answer as many or as few as you would like, or don't answer any if there is an issue behind by questions I am missing that needs to be detailed. You can also answer in the form of a book recommendation. However, I would strongly urge you to answer this one:

• Why did Gunnar turn back?

I currently live in Somaliland, and want to be part of building my country. I want to know about books written about the history of great nations, and the leaders that built them. Books that will not only inspire but teach me a thing or two. Thanks in advance guys.

Hello all

I've been looking for large, high quality resolution scans of maps of cities in north american in the 1880-1920 area, specifically cities in the United States and Canada outside of Toronto (have a good resource for that one.)

Wasn't sure if this would apply here or in Maps or in MapPorn, but figured this was the safest bet.

Serious question.

My grandparents lived in Hungary in WWII and when they were married, they were assigned a home by the State that formerly belonged to a Jewish family that had been sent off to a camp. While my grandparents weren't told this, they very quickly and easily figured it out as the home was furnished with belongings from this former family. My grandmother packaged all their pictures up and hid them in the attic. As my grandfather was in the Army and was on the Western Front late in the war and my grandmother traveled with him (perks of being an officer's wife, I guess), they vacated the home and left everything there. She said she never found out what happened after the war as she didn't return to Hungary until 1946 and then they went straight to my great-grandparents' home and lived with them for a few years until they fled Hungary.

I always wondered what people who had been sent off to the death camps and survived experienced afterward. How were they received in their communities? How did they face those who turned their backs on them when they were being sent off? I think that many of these folks went to the newly formed Israel, but there are still many who stayed in their homes. Any information about this would be appreciated.

EDITED: Missed a word in the title. Sorry!

As in: someone decided that the week would be Monday-Sunday (or Sunday-Saturday), but who declared for the first (last?) time: "TODAY IS MONDAY".

I hope this isn't a really stupid question, thanks a lot guys