I read that gladiators use to endorse products like modern celebrities. This seems possible only if there are some laws around using a person's name and image. If not, I could say any gladiator recommends my olive oil. So what were personality rights in Ancient Rome?

I was reading on Wikipedia, that during the time of the Byzantine Empire, the term Byzantine was not applied, and citizens thought of themselves as Roman. So why, after the fall, was the name Byzantine applied? I understand that culturally it had changed quite a bit from the proper "Roman" times, yet the Roman Republic, and Roman Empire also changed quite a lot during its time. So why Byzantine? Why is it not called "The late Roman Empire" or something similar?

Would that mean that either Nathan's argument is not concrete or that Tom Holland is just wrong? Also, that title is exactly 300 characters long. Yes, that was a bitch to fit.

I wanted to piggy back on the top post in this sub, but I arrived a bit late.

I was just reading about the Japanese premodern-early modern era (Tokugawa Shogunate time period). My book stated something along the lines of the Japanese and Westerners seeing eye to eye relatively well due to similar class structures and other factors. It seems like the existence of castles might strike a chord between the few allowed visitors like the Portuguese/Dutch and the Japanese.

So, were there any large differences between Japanese castles and Western castles in general? Is there any evidence that was a topic of mutual interest among visiting Westerners and the Japanese, or is it pure speculation?

Thanks!

When did it start to become well known that one shouldn't get drunk while pregnant? In the book, the main character gets angry at his wife for other reasons, but it's not ever presented as something that could be harmful to the child, just as something annoying the parent is doing. Was this common at the time?

I don't see a difference between state and kingdom. Did the "states" in ancient China not have hereditary patriarchal monarchies operating independently like every everyone else?

Specifically, I'm talking about Music Bands, Choirs & Orchestras would play. As a Choir Student, I've sung my large scale of European and African pieces, but I've never sung nor heard a song from Asia nor from Native Americans. Are there any Historical explanations for this, or am I not exposed to enough variety?

It has to do with nations allowing for their war criminals to be tried in international tribunals. I know that the U.S and Israel are among the few nations that did not sign. Sorry if this is the wrong place. I went through the subreddit rules, but wasn't totally sure If I landed in the right place.

I've been having a difficult time deciding on a topic for this paper. So far the things that have come to mind are the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil War. I'm just looking for suggestions of topics I could potentially research that would be both engaging and fun to learn more about.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

I was watching a documentary on the English Longbow and a big focus was the Battle of Crecy. At the end of the documentary they note how the English side lost only 2 knights while hundreds of French Knights were killed. Looking more into this claim Wikipedia lists, from different sources, causalities ranging from 1500-4000 Knights and Squires.

Now biased TV documentaries and Wikipedia sources aside, that is large amount of the Nobility class lost in a single battle much less a continuing war.

So my question is after a war costing hundreds or thousands of Squires, Knights, and other Nobility how did Europe refresh it's ranks?

Did the surviving nobility just breed their numbers back or were lower classes "promoted" into the ranks of the aristocracy?

In many pirate movies cannons fire balls that explode when they hit enemy ships aswell as in movies like "the patriot". Is this accurate or were they just balls of metal that ripped through ships?
edit: it's late and I have just seen the typos in the title.

I'm having a hard time grasping what actually happened or what each account (i.e the Bible vs. the Sennacherib Prism) says what happened.

Hi historians! I am really interested in Roman history, especially its decline and fall but I don't have more knowledge about it. Could you recommend some books about Rome history that are more telling-a-story-like, easy to understand to give me a better overview of the great kingdom? Thank you so much!

Leave a source if you can, please! Last problem - I can't figure it out.

I know that there were times when women were prohibited from appearing on stage, followed by a time when a woman on the stage was considered to be of less than sterling character. When did it become accepted by most of society that a woman should appear on the stage, and she wouldn't be automatically assumed to be loose?

Edit: By appear on the stage, I mean acting in non-musical plays.

I guess this might be more of a question about the history of the study of history itself, but when did the idea that the North started the war become so widespread and why do so many people ignore that the war started when Fort Sumter was attacked by the confederates?

I just finished a thoroughly frustrating historical novel dealing with the reign of Richard I. After doing a quick bout of research to seperate fact from fiction I'm still thoroughly confused by the "was he gay?" debate. A lot of people seem to think the claim is silly and based on insufficient knowledge of the time ("zOMG it says sodomy/he shared a bed with a dude"). On the other hand a lot of people on Team Heterosexual base their claim on the fact that he did have intercourse with women (because bisexuality doesn't exist) and seem to disregard some of the sources cited by those who think he might have been gay/bi.

(Should add that's based on very shallow internet research, and that I'm as tired of "was X gay" as you probably are.)