Hello, I'm looking for a website that'll follow the world war day to day in the next 4 years. Anything like this?

I remember going through school my teacher telling us that the only qualification a Spartan women had to put their name on a gravestone was because their son had died on the battle field. Is there more to the story?

Is this just a colloquialism, or is there a specific date attached to the phrase?

I saw someone on reddit comment that history repeats itself and that the western world was closely similar before WWI to now. Is this even accurate?

Could/would clients in Ancient Rome change loyalties to different patrons? How taboo was this, and how often did it happen (if ever). Could/did patrons disown clients?

Any resource on the patron/client system would be welcome as well.

As far as I can find evidence of, there seems to have always been people in society who thought "the end is nigh", but not until the cold war/ "Duck and cover" era did they start to prepare for it. Sure the show "doomsday preppers" or whatever it is on nat geo is just a show, but i do knew a few people myself who have quite a few "bug out bags" and weapons stashed for the end they believe is coming.

From what I can tell, this mentality originated during the cold war. Do you believe this to be the case? Do you see those who obsess over bomb shelters as something new in your era or merely something evolved?

Stalin was an amazingly bloodthirsty and vindictive man, but I think it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that elements within Soviet society or the army were, at various times, plotting against him. He had a lot of enemies. So, were any of his persecutions 'justified', strategically if not morally?

We know the US has sent lots of supplies to the Soviets during WW2 (including tanks, planes, trucks, etc.), but how did they do it? Did they transport them from Alaska to Siberia across the strait? Did they transport them through the Levant/Turkey or India->Iran to the Caucasus? Was it from India to Iran and then over the Caspian Sea or perhaps through what is today's Turkmenistan?

I've tried searching for examples, but the examples I've found up until now have either had to do with the world of art (e.g. the impact of Monet's works on the world of painting) or had to do with our modern understanding of ancient civilizations (e.g. discovery of King Tut's tomb showed the extent of Egyptian craft and religion). There are also a few cases where the creation/gifting/stealing of art has been of historical significance (e.g. state-sponsored art that way way over budget, the gifting of the Statue of Liberty to the United States, art getting plundered in war, etc.). We've heard about the book Silent Spring's role in banning DDT and other environmentally-damaging pesticides, music of the 60's role in the pro-peace/anti-war movement, Henry L. Stimson's appreciation for Kyoto's leading to the second a-bomb's dropping on Nagasaki instead, and I'd even mention the controversy over whether violent movies/video games/etc. contributed to any instance of mass shooting. Yet, I can't recall a single story about a drawing, painting, sculpture's leading to a major world event or causing a shift in general society. This tragically implies that fine art, while perhaps still an important part of the human psyche that results in subtle shifts and changes, has no instant, direct, or practical impact on the world!

Someone please give me an example that refutes this assumption! I would love to hear from non-art historians too; tell me about a time a military general saw Guernica and became a pacifist, or when some ancient invading force was so intimidated by a city wall mosaic they turned and fled, or even a sociology study showing that erecting murals in bad neighborhoods lowers crime rates? What I ultimately want to know is, does fine art have the potential to change the world in the same way that other arts like literature, film, and music seem to?

I read today (in Roger Crowley's City of Fortune, pg 129) that Venice outlawed the slave trade in the city in 1381. This source declines to give further information. It also mentions that slavery continued in other parts of their maritime empire.

My question is, why and in what circumstances was slavery outlawed in 1381, and can we give a rough date for when the Venetians (and the other Italian merchant republics, if possible) finally stopped their practice in this trade?

In many schools in the United States, the Thirteen Colonies are portrayed as being tremendous underdogs in the Revolutionary War. I am curious if that would have been the case when looking at the situation from a pre-war perspective, without the benefit of hindsight.

Would Great Britain really have been the huge favorite to win and squash the revolution? If so, then how much was Great Britain the favorite? For example, if we were placing bets, how much cash would one receive if they bet $1,000 on Great Britain and Great Britain ended up winning? How much cash would one receive if they bet $1,000 on the Thirteen Colonies and were correct?

Obviously this requires quite a bit of speculation, but I think it would be interesting to see someone well-versed in American history analyze the information that would have been available in early 1775 to come to an educated conclusion. Thanks in advance for your answers!

I love the history of war. Particularly the Napoleon era. I played many games and trying to see which is the most accurate. Napoleon total war has very accurate canons which can hit units far away. In the other hand some game like assassin creed 4 have canon which seems to cannot fire farer than ~ 30 meters. So in the real life what was the use of canon ? Their efficiency, accuracy and the damages they did on people ? ( for example in master and commanders the canon ball seems to project sharp wood everywhere)

Correct me if I'm wrong but Sumer was the world's oldest civilization. So why did the idea that China was the world's oldest civilization pop up? Was it part of the Orientalist ideas of 19th century Europe?

A while ago, I was browsing TVTropes (no, don't go there, come back here!) and in the entry under Colonel Kilgore (basically, lover of war), a contributor attempts to make the point that Robert E. Lee likely struggled with growing too fond of war, signified by his memorable quote ("It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it"). This got me thinking: What was Robert E. Lee like? We get told so much about what they did in school but we never stop to learn what the famous Generals were like. So, what was Lee like in day to day life?

Howdy /r/askhistorians! I come to you today hat-in-hand with a topic about which I know very little: the legend of Prester John. I've heard only a few things about this mythical figure, and in the midst of a discussion with a friend the other day, I first learned of the startling theory that Prester John might have a more-than-coincidental link to that other Eastern ruler, Genghis Khan. I know more about the Mongol Conquests than I do about Christian theological legends (which is to say, I am nowhere near an authority on either), but this seems a little bit of a stretch to me. After all, I was under the impression that the Prester John myths predated Crusader knowledge of the Mongols, but maybe I'm wrong.

So, my fellow flaired users, what's the thinking amongst modern historians on this topic? Do we have any primary sources that draw a causative link between the Mongol Scourge and the Savior of the Crusaders? Are the suspiciously close names "Prester John" and "Genghis Khan" etymologically linked, or is it just an amazing coincidence?

Not pagan restorationists.

I.e., Jew/Roman scribe Josephus decides it might be prouder for his (former?) people to go out in suicide, rather than describing the rapes and slaughters that actually occurred. Or that the Romans/history would rather think the Jews broke their own rule, and even the mighty Sicarii assassins were afraid to take on their men... and, as his is the only account...

i am aware that there is archeological evidence that lots were cast, my dad participated in the excavation with Yadin back in the day, and I have been there to see the sun rise more than once and hear the story of the suicide ad nauseam... but... couldn't those stones with names have been used for other purposes? Isn't the fact that Josephus tells a similar story about a siege at Jotapata suspicious, or was that the way mass suicides were/are done? I wrote a paper on it in college, I think they cast lots in the siege at Jotapata too... anyway, was curious for more opinions, thanks.