So lately I’ve been reading up on Linear B and it’s predecessor Linear A. Got so many questions about this topic but I’ll try to summarize them:

• If I understand correctly, all tablets of linear B only contain administrative topics. Are there tablets in linear A that are likely to be literary in nature?
• Are there other undeciphered languages where we have large texts but that we just can’t decipher (yet)?
• What makes it so difficult to decipher linear A? If I understand correctly, we have a lot of similar logograms/syllables as in linear B...
• Do you think linear A will ever be deciphered?
• Do you think linear A is old Mycean, or is it most likely a different language?

Listening to The History of Rome for the umpteenth time and each time I always scratch my head when we reach the 5th century AD and the collapse of the West. It seems that the one of the main reasons the Western Empire struggled was because it couldn’t pay for an army. Which makes me wonder - why did Romans need to be paid to fight for their country? They’re living in total societal collapse and rather than fight for their country they just chill at home because…. They wouldn’t be paid. Maybe I’m applying too much of a modern perspective on this but the idea of not fighting for your country during its implosion because you wouldn’t be paid seems insane.

Do we know why Romans wouldn’t fight for their country in the end? Was nationalism/patriotism not a thing in Roman times in the 5th century?

I just came across electric cars being built as early as 1893. They were also preferred to gas cars since they were more silent. Their range was a problem since they couldn't travel far. But they were more liked that gasoline cars as those cars had their own problems. Why didn't they go into mass production and overcome their initial hurdles of development as compared to gas cars.

During my service I learned of the battle of Tali-Ihantala in Finland, 1944, where the Finnish artillery was able to target 256 guns to a single target point. I was told it was a "record" at the time and that no other artillery would have been capable of it then. Would this be true? And also how different were the artilleries and their capabilities in different countries?

I understand that its a difficult question, as at the time all of this information was very secret (the Finnish invention fire correction circle was kept top secret until the end of the war) and as you cant compare them kind of like you could two different tanks, etc. But if someone would have any info on this, I would very much appreciate.

I'm sure there's some pro-Hamilton bias and some resulting anti-Jefferson bias as he is Hamilton's nemesis, but even trying to look at Jefferson's actions objectively, he seems pretty terrible.

Is this accurate?

BTW as an aside is Hamilton just clearly the smartest guy in the room, wherever he goes? From this book he seems like a genius among geniuses (again, I'm sure there's bias but still!).

With everything in the news about the "immigration crisis" in Europe, and the wave of Mexicans crossing the border into the US, it made me wonder how Americans of the 1920s e.g viewed the huge wave of Italian immigrants (more than 4 million) arriving on the East Coast. Especially considering how they were predomenantly Catholic while America was a Protestant country. Did it spark debates on immigration laws the same way it's doing today? Were they viewed suspiciously? Thanks in advance.

Under Roman rule, Egypt was not only the granary of the Empire, but also a major source of revenue through land and trade tax. But as the Middle Ages developed, the newly developed urban centers of Western Europe, like Flanders and Northern Italy, seemed to rely more on grain from the southern Baltic coast and the Crimea and its surroundings, respectively.

Even after European powers gained undisputable military superiority by the middle of the modern era they didn't seem to covet Egypt as source of food, but trade (e.g. Napoleon's Egyptian campaign). As a matter of fact, as I understand it, the land of the Nile started to focus more and more on cash crops like cotton instead of grain.

So why did Egypt lose its preeminence as major exporter of grain? Were other regions productive enough to meet Europe's market demands, even though they had a shorter growing season (but perhaps very fertile soil)? Was it because Europe's population boomed throughout this period, and so the arable land of Egypt became relatively small?

"3 Solomon showed his love for the Lord by walking according to the instructions given him by his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places.

4 The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar."

New International Version.

He did sign an aliance with Japan, but they weren't the aryan perfection that Hitler praised as superior, so are there any records of his toughts on the japanese?

I’m currently watching the documentary World War 1 Apocalypse, which has some unbelievable combat footage, such as artillery barrages, “over the top” charges, Anzacs hitting Gallipoli beaches, etc.; however, it looks like it could be staged or a reenactment. With the camera technology during that time, I’m wondering how feasible it would be to film combat, and if the scenes I am seeing are in fact real.

I have heard conflicting accounts of the combat effectiveness of CAS in the second world war. It is often portrayed as devestating in some contemporary/popular accounts, but I have also seen historiographers suggest that this reflects the main contribution of CAS as being damaging to the enemy's morale.

Not to downplay the importance of morale damage in war, I understand that this matters a great deal. I am just curious as to how much the perceived danger by soliders subject to close-range aerial bombing was a fair reflection of the achieved damage to people and material on the ground.

Thanks in advance!

Upon visiting England for the first time as a teen, I realised that while basic facts came from history class, a lot of my sense of the cultural foundations were more informed by writers like E. M. Forster, Charles Dickens, Agatha Christie, etc. Obviously these are works of fiction and I don't believe that embittered women swanning around in 40-year-old wedding gowns was ever common practice. That said, these works must communicate something about the time period in which they were written.

That thought also piqued my interest about ancient works. I can't imagine there's a lot of writing from those time periods, so does that increase the historical value of these texts? What does that mean for historians looking at those time periods?

I think my question is this: what is the role of contemporary fiction in historical scholarship? What are the best practices? Does this differ based on the time period? Especially with older works, how would historians work to interpret metaphor or satire? Are there any ongoing debates about fictions' role in scholarship? Does this work change if the text in question is a religious one?

​

Just to be 100% clear: by contemporary fiction, I mean works written during the past (eg: Jane Eyre or The Ballad of Mulan) not modern historical fiction (eg: Wolf Hall). Not sure if there's a better way to word that!

So, I'm a merchant sailor somewhere off Bermuda in the age of sail. I see a mast come up over the horizon bearing a black flag with a white skull and crossed bones, do I have reason to panic?

Where does the classic pirate flag actually come from? Is it an invention of Hollywood? I know that major pirates like Blackbeard had personal flags with similar themes, but surely pirates wouldn't be organized enough to adopt a universal symbol that says "Yarr, I be a pirate!" It seems like that would just make them a target for every naval ship or armed merchantman they passed on the high seas. And what about privateers?