Looking at the present we can see goth, emo, punk, metro etc "cultures existing. If one were to try to describe one of these it would be virtually impossible to get a strong consensus i.e. Goth = "black, tights, piercings" in my eyes but in someone elses it might mean "listens to metal".

So keeping that in mind how do historians come up with a consensus on how to define cultural movements in the past? Examples would be Gothic, Brutalist and Neo in architecture or Grunge/Rock in music. If we have such a hard time in the present classifying these how do historians that didnt even live in the era do it?

I love reading about the ancient Greeks and Romans but I can't read direct sources, but want to. I am just a fan of history, not formally educated (in history anyway). I find a have a massive common knowledge problem. It seems every page has multiple references to things (ex. cities, family names, ethnic groups, etc) that I have to look up. It's especially hard when I am suppose to know that that thing has a trait (ex. specific type of priests, political family, nomadic raiders, etc). It makes for difficult reading and I just go back to re-reading my favorite books about the ancient world. Thanks for any recommendations!

To further clarify and specify:

Let's take an adult with enough luxury and time to read history during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Would they take at face value the reported 1,000,000 Persians who Alexander apparently faced at Gaugamela, or the approximately quarter of a million Gauls who Caesar was reported to have faced at Alesia?

Would they be aware of how historians could exaggerate or even fabricate their histories?

I just watched Amadeus, and there's footmen all over that movie. They open the emperor's doors. They serve his food. They make his bed. Was this a menial job, like earning minimum wage? Or was there intense scrutiny, like working in the White House?

I was taught that the upper classes of present day Belgium, both noble and non-noble, started speaking French around the time of the French revolution and subsequent conquest by Napoleon. It even replaced the Walloon language entirely, even after the country became independent. Why and how exactly did it happen? Did the French oust the Walloon and Flemish speaking nobility and replace them with French ones when they took over the territory? Why did the same thing not happen in the Netherlands proper, which was also ruled by Napoleon at some point? Why did the upper classes not revert to their original language when Napoleon was defeated? Why did no-one adopt the German or Spanish languages when those empires held the Southern Netherlands?

This question interests me because it lies at the root of Belgium's ethnic/language friction up until the present day. I never quite understood why French was the language that stuck around, instead of the languages of Belgium's other historic rulers.

From the limited understanding I have, both countries tried to reform their military to Western standards during the late 19th century. However, the Japanese reforms seemed to succeed better as they were able to defeat the Chinese in the first Sino-Japanese war despite numerical inferiority. Later, in the 20th century, the IJN grew into a force that could threaten the US Navy while the Chinese navy remained relatively small. The Japanese army remained qualitatively superior to chinese ground forces as well for most of the war. What were the reasons for China's military ineptitude?

Was there a lot of disbelief? How did religious organizations react? I feel like it would be pretty shocking, worldwide to discover the place we live was once home to giant lizards.

I've recently been reading a lot about Eastern European history (from Tomek Jankowski's book) and am currently learning about the creation of Balkan nations in the later years of the Ottoman Empire. It mentions several new nations (from memory - Bulgaria, Romania & Albania) that called upon German princes as leaders at the beginning of their independence. I think I remember reading that during the (much much earlier) establishment of Bohemia (i.e. the precursor of the Czech nation), a German leader was invited, and certainly the Rus invited Nordic rulers, but why at this much later stage was there such a reliance on their leadership?

The Germans obviously had a well-established state system already, but I find it strange that there was an apparent lack of potential leadership from within the respective nations. Also, failing that, why were princes from no other Western European nations involved (especially the Hapsburg empire/Austro-Hungary, which stood in the way of the two regions, and Russia, which was involved so much militarily in the region and shared a closer religious bond, to Bulgaria at least)?

What exactly was the relationship between the early Balkan nations and (what is now) Germany? Thanks.

I was wondering how much of the mental anguish caused by statutory rape is a function of societal norms.

As such, I figured that at some point women likely were having sex when they first began to menstruate (correct that assumption if I'm wrong). Was there any evidence this had adverse effects on the mental health of those women?

To further explain what I mean is instead of just picking important dates through history and working towards today is it reasonable or is anyone trying to teach from current events backwards into the past?

I've read in various places, including this subreddit, that ancient Rome had a population that likely peaked at around 1 million. I've got a couple questions as to how this was possible.

First, where did most of the food supply come from? Was it primarily in Italy or primarily from conquered regions such as Egypt?

Second, and this is what I'm really struggling to comprehend, what did all of those Romans actually do for a living? Certainly many were craftsmen or involved in other trade skills, but were there really enough jobs to support a densely populated city of 1 million in those times? Or is my modern viewpoint of every individual having a job the wrong way to look at it?

Thanks

I've been reading a lot about propaganda and such from the West, but I have been unable to find anything about Soviet efforts. Was there something they broadcast into NATO Pact Nations?