I am doing some research on historic ages and can find information about ancient Greece/Mesopotamia/Egypt dating back to approx 3000 BC , but anything prior to that dates back to 10,000 -13,000 BC with cave paintings, Aborigines in Australia , or Ancient Japan. Have we lost everything that happened between those 7,000 years? I was always taught that 'life started' with the Tigris and Euphrates, but in reality we have evidence of life dating back 7,000 years before that.

If this is the case we are missing a length of time (3000 BC - 10,000 BC) from our historic record that is greater than the historic record that we know of (2000 AD - 3000 BC). And that's not to mention the idea that homo sapiens have been on the planet for anywhere between 100K-200K years.

Do we really know that little about our historic time periods?

Thank you - Very interested in what I've gotten wrong or right.

I suppose my question is encompassing the entire history of capes, so people who are studying different time periods can comment on the function and social implications of wearing one.

Why were capes popularized? What was their original purpose? Did that original purpose remain their main function throughout history or did time also change the purpose of the cape?

I hear from someone that capes were worn so when you went to the bathroom in open areas, you could hang it up and get privacy. This seemed to make sense to me, however, why would nobles need capes then? They often had private bathrooms and even some wealthier non-nobles would have private bathrooms.

So what is the actual function of the cape?

(You can answer in whatever time period you know most about)

Hello people's, I am writing a historical fiction about a low ranking member of house Julia set in 73BCE to 43BCE and would like to know as much as possible about life in the Roman republic, Gaul, Rome and Pompeii during this time. Anything along these lines would be universally helpful, trust worthy records/information about this age, sources and text books you would recommend on this subject and anything that is must know about this time going in. I would like to thank you all in advance for helping me make the most historically accurate historical fiction.

We all know that it was a crushing defeat for the Romans, but how good of a fight back did the legionaries give? How many Germans did they take with them?

And how bad was Germanicus' campaign of revenge against the Germans?

I am a baroque flute player studying a treatise written by Johann Joachim Quantz titled "On Playing the Flute" (English translation). The book was originally written in German, in 1752. Quantz was a court musician in the court of Frederick II, or Frederick the Great. King in Prussia. In an attempt to create context and enhance my understanding of this time period, who would have been able to read and understand this book? Was formal training in literacy limited to nobility? Was formal training in music limited to nobility?

Not only does this flesh out my understand of this writing but it also will inform me on whether or not musicians of that time period learned aurally (By ear, preferring to memorize music) or by sight reading (By vision, preferring to read sheet music), or a combination of both, depending on the circumstances.

In modern times, in the classical music community, at least in the United States, memorization is not a universal requirement in schooling. Vocalists, many string players, and most keyboard players will be required to perform recitals from memory. In contrast, orchestral instrument students are not met with this requirement.

In the performance of this music, on instruments that are replications of instruments from that time period (My flute is a Boxwood Carlo Palanca copy, made by Martin Wenner. From about 1740), the topic of memorization is one that comes up from time to time. Did people do it then? Would performers of that period be MORE INCLINED to do it? Is it just a performance practice that began in the 19th century with the advent of concert halls? Should instrumentalists make memorization a priority? As with modern performance practice, there is a divide on this topic.

Thank you for your time!

On the face of it, this question might seem a bit obtuse, because annexations were not uncommon in 19th-20th century European conflicts. However, I was just curious about eastern Germany. Looking at old maps, it looks as though these regions (Eastern Pomerania, Frankfurt, Liegnitz, Breslau, Oppeln, Ostprussen) belonged to Germany/Prussia for quite some time, some parts since 1700.

I'm more curious as to why these annexations happened, what the justifications were, what kind of opposition Germans put up against it, etc. Did these regions have ethnically polish majorities?

I know that Josef Mengele liked to do a lot of studies on identical twins. What discoveries, or even inventions, if any, spawned from his research, as well as the research of other doctors and scientists?

All I know is that some denied the resurrection and some didn't. What did they believe about heaven and hell?

I was taught in school that the civil broke out because the south refused to abolish slavery. I was talking to a friend however who claims that although slavery was an issue at the time, the civil war only broke out because the federal government wanted to impose taxes that the southern states did not want to pay.

Mainly China, Russia, Central Asia, The Middle East, and India(conquered a short time later). Places like Japan and Europe which were not conquered by the Mongols are all prospering to this day.

Other than achieve a place in history.

I've been researching Sutton Hoo and I just don't quite understand why they buried a ship and such precious items? more conceptually, how did those people think about their wealth? especially since they were willing to bury their most prized possessions.

I recently read up a bit on the history of the Samurai, with descriptions of their gear and armory and well, and one thing struck me: a decided lack of shields, especially when compared to their European counterparts. In what I've seen of Korean and Chinese depictions of medieval and earlier military, this seems true as well. This might just be owing to my own lack of knowledge on the subject, but I am curious; is there any reason for this apparent aversion to shield and shield-like constructions?

Was there an "Old" York or "Old" Jersey they were referencing to?

I've read on this forum that there are now revisionist accounts that claim that Cathars as we think of them did not actually exist, and I just recently saw that historian J. C. Davis claimed that the Ranters did not in fact exist.

Two questions: 1). Are there other heretical groups whose existence we have recently begun to doubt? 2). How solid is the history behind these revisionist accounts?

Something like Emperor, King, Arch Duke, Duke, but also titles like Chancellor, Senator, ect. I've looked online and have a decent idea on it, but I haven't been able to find a simple break down of the hierarchy, roles, and reasoning for the differences. Any help would be much appreciated

Edit: Specifically in the Renaissance/Elizabethan time period

They're described as stronger than the Lebanese army but how exactly were they able to create something like this?

And what kind? Were there sappy quotes or apocryphal stories attributed to him? Was he just portrayed as a genius or also a morally good figure like a Ghandi or a Washington?

I am mostly looking for what they taught children and propaganda, but anything would be interesting.

This is a repost from a few days ago, as no one answered the earlier post.