So our essay questions is to compare and contrast the political institutions in these two states, and I have no clue how to really go about this or what to say. Usually for history test essays I organize it in a five paragraph style, with a simple thesis but I'm not sure what mine should SAY. Here's what I have so far:

Thesis: The two states shared a similar governmental structure, bureaucracy, and internal/external policy, but despite these similarities differences in philosophical and social outlook caused these aspects of political institutions to widely diverge.

Things I talk about:

Same: -Gov: Absolute rule, Decentralized 'federations' -Bureaucracy: Scholarly class administration, advanced bureacracy performing public works, influenced by philosophical traditions, codified laws (Ashoka's edicts and Legalist influenced Confucianism) -Internal/External policy: Relative decentralization due to diversity, use of regional princes and vassals, powerful militaries.

Diff: -Gov: Han China was more homogenized, Maurya was more tolerant of other beliefs. -Bureaucracy: Meritocracy in Han China -Internal/External policies: Maurya played major international role, Han are isolationist (due to lower position of merchants). Maurya engaged in diplomatic maneuvering to 'annex' territory, Han relied on outright conquest.

The problems I have right now are a lack of things to say about the government in similarities and differences, differences in bureaucracy, and similarities in policy. I'm also not sure this is the best way of comparing political institutions. Any help available?

• Technology wise? (Eg: I've seen it said that medieval stonework was much better.)

• Structure wise? (Eg: It feels like that there were more republics in Antiquity, although I may be wrong, and the Feudal System seems to have been a Medieval invention.)

• Otherwise? (Feel free to chime in.)

Answers to any or all of the above welcome.

I have been searching around and I have found that "Latin" also means a native where their country's language developed from latin, so does that mean that people from Italy, France, Romania etc, are considered latin?

In many works of historical and fantasy fiction, arrows doused in some flammable substance are set alight before firing at the enemy. How commonplace was this tactic in real life (if it was used at all) and if so what advantage would it confer? I have a hard time imagining a burning arrow actually setting anything on fire or having any practical use, were they used purely as a "shock and awe" tactic, to inspire fear into the enemy or were they more effective than one would think?

Hey r/askHistorians!

Over the last few months, I have been contemplating going back to school and going for my PhD in History. I have a Bachelor’s in History that I got 10 years ago, and been in the work force ever since (in an unrelated field.) I am embarking on a major change in my life (moving to New Zealand with my Husband) and am seeing this as an opportunity to pursue a life-long goal of mine.

I am posting because I worry about career opportunities after I get out of school. At a minimum, I will be in school for 4-6 years (either a 1 year honors course, then 3-4 years PHD, or a Masters, then a PHD) and when I finish, I will be in my late 30’s and out of the work force for that long. I also know that the History field (especially teaching) is competitive, and small. It also will be tough as I will be in New Zealand… not the best place to get a University level job. I know I could write books, textbooks, or other things, but I want to see… What can a historian actually do other than teach at a University?

However, I want to do this. I really want to pursue this, and not just because I can… but because I want to do something with it. I have a passion about history that I want to push further, and while I am hesitant, I want to do this so badly…

It is just the pragmatic part of me that needs reassurance.

I would love to teach, but I would love to explore other things: archives, research, writing… I just need some perspective, and some honesty… is it worthwhile to get my PHD? What should I expect the market place to be when I get out, and is it worth it?

What was theatre like between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance? Was it open to everyone? What were some famous plays of the time period?

Title says it all. I did some googling around but couldnt find anything.

cheers!

Bonus question: Are there traces of those religions and beliefs that have made it to the present day?

I remember reading somewhere that the P-51 was a game-changer because it was able to escort bombers for their entire mission, thus keeping the bombers much safer.

Assuming this is correct, why did they make such a big difference if the bombers already had significant anti-air defenses?

As far as I'm aware the formation of the Ulster Volunteers by Carson wasn't a move to force partition rather it was to be used as a force to resist imposed home rule. At what point did unionist begin to suggest it as an alternative?

Under the Anglo-Irish treaty the Boundary Commission was established which the Free State government were told would involve a redrawn border involving the transfer of large areas of land south. The commission only suggested small transfers and ultimately was rejected by all sides.

But from reading on the issue it seems that many of those in government and civic society in the south saw partition as a temporary inconvenience with unification an incoming eventuality. At what point did this viewpoint change?

Why is Eva Braun described as Hitlers 'mistress' and not 'girlfriend' or 'partner'?
I thought a mistress is a woman in a sexual relationship with a married man, but Hitler wasn't married until he and Eva Braun wed just before committing suicide?

like the title states i'd like to know why modern day people think this and if they don't what their opinion is.

Also, what was the most common cause of death for victims of this punishment? Hypothermia, drowning, predators etc.