I know he most likely existed and I've scoured the subreddit FAQ on Jesus and was unable to find anything speaking to this point specifically. If someone could link to a specific point in a post that'd be great. Also I understand the obvious impossibility of someone coming back from the dead but I was wondering if there were any accounts close to it that would explain a resurrection misunderstanding.

I've been interested in this topic for a while and haven't found a decent answer to this.

Obviously there are certain figures, who, during the course of history came to preside over states and empires that dominated vast parts of the European mainland, uniting them under one banner, for example the Roman Empire, and the French Empires under Napoléon. However, it took two (arguably three if you count the Seven Years' War) world wars for the seeds of the European ideal to truly take hold, in the form of the EEC and its predecessors, eventually resulting in the creation of the European Union.

What I'd really like to know though, is at what point the roots for a united Europe started to grow, and the point when general consensus in European countries changed in favour of a union.

I'm sorry if this is the completely wrong place to post this but I'm at a bit of a loss.

I'm in a Musical and as a cast we are researching not only the history of the show itself, but the contextual history too, and as part of that, I am supposed to be researching Popular music of the time.

The show is set in "A small quiet town in Provence" if that helps. I'm looking for any help you can give me, specifics or general summaries would both really help.

Thank you very much!

Countless movies and videogames such as Indiana Jones present Aztec, Mayan and other South American civilizations as having lethal burial grounds. There are dart traps in every corridor, pressure plates to trigger pitfalls and some other advanced mechanisms. Is any of this based in reality? Was there an actual tradition of using these or other kinds of traps to dissuade (grave)robbers?

So I'm a year into the major courses for Justice Studies, which simply isn't interesting, which I took up in pursuit of a good and potentially interesting job. I'm reconsidering a History major as I'm not yet too deep into CRJU. My interests may be a little outside the scope of this reddit, but I'm sure many of you have a perspective that could help me (If you would be so kind). I have broad interests in history, but am particularly fascinated with mechanical, science, and ancient history. I do know I don't want to teach. I'd really like to be on the ground breaking end of history (Like Indiana Jones without the boulders chasing me), but I've long imagined jobs entailing this were few and far between as well as disappearing. Archaeology as well as museum jobs come to mind as something I might enjoy. I love learning and actually enjoyed writing a paper for the first time in History (Artemesium and Thermopylae). Is there potential in the field for someone like me, or am I off my rocker for considering it?

I'd very much appreciate your insight/advice.

Some background

I am in a single-elimination debate tournament of ~140 to determine the greatest leader of all time. My leader is Chiang Kai-Shek (aka Jiang Jieshi, among others). I am listed as a sixth seed in my section bracket. I won my first round debate against an 11th seed of Ronald Reagan in a run-off round. The first debate was a debate in which we took turns, rather than open debate, the remaining rounds are open debate.

Current Situation

My second round debate is against Rosa Luxemburg, who upset the third seeded Maximilien de Robespierre in the opening round of the tournament. The second round debate consists of a two-minute opening statement, followed by a six-minute open debate. Historically, the open debate rounds have been won by those who can both clearly state their legacy, and attack the legacy of the opponent. The less defense needed, the better. The debate's central question is:

What is your legacy, and why does it make you great?

What I already have:

Is next to nothing. My attacks are focused around the idea that Luxemburg:

• Was a pacifist, yet promoted a revolution, which, while not by definition, typically consists of violent overthrow.

• The go-to defense/attack: Capitalism (which, I, Chiang Kai-Shek, advocated), has clearly won out over Marxism.

• Imprisoned during first revolution attempt for about 2.5 years, then chose not to support the second revolutionary wave that rose about 2 months after your release.

• Died to little fanfare. Body was not identified for four months. Nobody really cared.

• Who really are you? Nobody has even heard of you. (Obviously I am referring to the general American public).

My main defense is that my country (Taiwan), is still intact. And I am hailed there as a national hero. Obviously, this isn't much. I intend to do most of the talking during the open-debate and do a lot of attacking.

So, AskHistorians, what really is Rosa Luxemburg's legacy? How does her legacy compare with Chiang Kai-Shek's?

Follow-up question: Any other opinions on attacks/defenses I may want/need would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

TL;DR: Debating as Chiang Kai-Shek against Rosa Luxemburg. Debate focuses on legacy and how it makes the leader you are posing as great. What is Luxemburg's legacy? How weak is it? What can I attack it with? What attacks should I be ready to defend?

I've been reading Pakenham's "The Boer War" and so far he's mentioned that, owing to the new style of "unseen warfare" brought about by both sides using smokeless powder, British officers started to carry rifles, abandoning their swords and revolvers, specifically when Roberts began his march to Bloemfontein.

"True to the new style of warfare, the officers carried rifles instead of swords" - pg 312

Considering how the British Army is believed to have learned a lot from this war, why is it that during WWI the vast majority of their officers appear to have reverted to using revolvers? Especially since conflict with Germany was increasingly likely after 1900 and most of the Boers' rifles were Mausers, similar to what the British would fight against in 1914.

After all, both of the British C-in-Cs from the First World War, French and Haig, and a number of other significant officers all served in the Boer War, so why did they not continue to use these developments later on?

Or can anyone give a timeline of the evolution of comedy? It feels like I live in the funniest time period in history (in spite of Grown Ups 2)

Have Canadian prime ministers from P.E. Trudeau forward been mainly French-Canadians or Anglo-Quebeckers because of the whole bilingual/bicultural thing and what not, while white South African prime ministers and presidents (until 1994, of course) were all Afrikaners because of first (1910-1948) the post-Boer War Afrikaner-Anglo compromises and then (1948-1994) apartheid-era Afrikaner National Party rule?

Sorry if i am posting in the wrong place, direct me of there is a better sub for this.

I'm writing a research paper on this and was hoping I could get multiple views on it to use as points. I'm already using:

• Hitler's obsession with the use of propaganda

• Goebell's and the Pro-mi's influence on the population

I'm researching more things to argue for my thesis. Any criticism or help is appreciated, I take everything as constructive (:

I also have trouble with theses. Any criticism on it would help too

My thesis: Despite Nazi German's decisive losses and disadvantages come 1943, their propaganda machines remained effective and aided in their persistence due to the approach that propaganda was a primary weapon to be used against the Allies and control the masses.

I want my kids to know about and love world history. Movies are exciting. I want to show them the 'best' movies/TV series. I've drafted a list but I know very little (My history classes were dull and it is only now I;m realising how amazing it is). I am unsure about the rating system (I will let them watch R rated if the film is a good one, kids these days see so much blood and gore anyways...that said, scarring them for life isn't really the idea). I am unsure about the value of 'wow' and a general sense Vs. accuracy (how much does it matter?) and just which films to show. For reference, here is the draft list I have made and any comments would be most appreciated. Here is my list;

300 (I know this isn't accurate, it is R rated but it might capture their interest?), Spartacus, Jesus of Nazareth, Ben-Hur, I, Claudius (TV), Elizabeth, A Man for All Seasons, Rob Roy, Roots (TV), Last of the Mohicans, Amazing Grace (Not totally accurate but gives a feel for history and a worthwhile film, yes?), Master and Commander, Amistad, Gone with the Wind, The Red Badge of Courage, Glory, Dances with Wolves, The Lonesome Dove (TV), Gandhi, Doctor Zhivago, All Quiet on the Western Front, Lawrence of Arabia, The Last Emperor, The Grapes of Wrath, To Kill a Mockingbird, Casablanca, Come and See, The Great Escape, The Shop on Main Street, Mandela: A Long Walk to Freedom, Das Boot, The Diary of Anne Frank, Tora! Tora! Tora!, War and Rememberence (TV), Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Europa, Europa, Band of Brothers, Der Untergang (Downfall), Flags of our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, Valkyrie, The Best Years of our Lives, Gentleman's Agreement, Platoon, Apollo 13, All the Presidents Men, Black Hawk Down

That's about 180 hours worth. Any help - additions, deletions, disagreements? If I sat them through this list, do you think they would be educated, entertained, enlightened? Thank you in advance.

EDIT: 20/5/14 So, we started watching these....and it is 'working' ...the kids are loving it. Sadly, the old films that are really long, are not causing as much joy/interest as I had hoped, however, one win was that we watched the old Spartacus and they hated it so i downloaded the newer TV film and they LOVED that. Doing a comparison of the two was pretty fun. We're now watching Medieval Lives and THAT is a huge success. Last night's dinner time conversation was 'Did you know, anyone caught killing a royal deer got their fingers or testicles cut off,' etc. etc.

THANK YOU SO MUCH to all of you who have contributed to this.