I can find little to no information about the scythians anywhere and it absolutely annoys me. As far as I’ve been able to find they just randomly disappeared which obviously probably didn’t just happen.

You know what I mean: Legionaries wear red cloaks and Praetorians wear blue, they wear the Lorica Segmentata, they carry big rectangular shields with eagle wings and lightning bolts on them, the cavalry have oval shields, and standard-bearers wear wolf skins. But why to we have this image that this was what the Roman Army looked like, and, dare I ask, is it accurate?

I was debating whether this is a better fit for this sub or r/asklinguistics, it seemed like a better fit here.

So if a modern english speaker were to sit down with a founding father (or an american from the same time period), how different would their forms of conversational speech be?

A lot of the documents from that period are a little difficult to read, because they use an older form of english, but I also realize that they were writing formally, and even modern formal writing can be hard to read. Obviously we don't have any recordings from that time period, but do we have any indication of the way they spoke in informal conversation?

This of course also has the underlying question of how readily available were maps, and how "accurate" were they, although I recognize accuracy isn't a strictly objective term as how a map would be understood changes over time to reflect the norms in making them.

[18 High Medieval] [57 Europe] [44 Maps]

I feel like whenever I see something talking about the Cold War, regardless of which event or year, it's referred to as the "Height of the Cold War." At this point it's more like the Cold War is a plateau. What does that even mean and why is it so frequently used?

Is it due to inaccuarcy of some of the illustrations, or were they both used? If the latter, were they used simultanously or did the army gradually evolve to use one more than the other?

How closely did Unification and Death work with the Serbian government? Would the government have known about Young Bosnia and the plans to assassinate Ferdinand?

Hi there, hope this is the right place to ask this. I'm a bit familiar with the WW2 period, but a question that always stuck in my mind is how did Nazi Germany retain its rocket scientists, like Wernher von Braun, when it seems like most of academia wanted to avoid working with the regime, or were straight up killed by the Nazis.

​

Was this because of their strong Nazi ideology? Wernher von Braun seemed more like a pragmatist, though he did use slave labor when building his rockets, so perhaps he was way more into the ideology than I've read about. Did they have decent compensation from the government, and that helped them stay in Germany? Or was it as simple as fear of being killed?

​

Sorry if this is all over the place, I woke up way too early

This has struck me as a curiosity for a long time, especially as I know and have worked with a number of Anglo-Catholic clergy and laypeople. Those who are heterosexual seem to hold to more traditional notions of sexuality and marriage (which is in part true for those who are gay), and this is all the more puzzling when such a significant proportion of Anglo-Catholics (particularly the clergy) are gay.

So, when did the association begin to appear? And how did sexualities understood then by Anglicans as ‘deviant’ and ‘wrong’ become so common in clerical circles?

Early Christians considered themselves Jews, so did Muslims do the same with Jews or Christians? Was it an early subject of debate, or was the split between the two faiths binary and obvious from the start?

What was Mexico's perspective on the Cold War and what sort of conversations about communism were had in Mexican politics?

I don't know how to word this question very well, but I once read that "the main cause for the difference in the development of 'black music' in Brazil and North America was that NA slaves were forbidden to make any music with 'drum beats', while in South America there was no such rule". Was that really a difference? If so, what was was the reason behind banning percussion?

(I'm reposting this question, hope it's ok)

Hello.

​

Although it is not my profession, I'm interested in history. For now, I'm just reading some historical books but I've encountered with a problem which I could not found a solution yet. For few years I'm interested in both Russian and Soviet history. From old Slavic tribes to Kievan Rus', Russian Empire to Soviet Union and beyond. The problem occurred when I bought a book called A History of Russia by George Vernadsky. Vernadsky is someone who hated Soviet Union and his take on Soviet Union is not really objective. However I don't really trust the hard-line communists' take on Soviet Union's history.

​

Is there a book written by a pro-soviet/pro-communist take which criticizes and/or shows not really bright side of Soviet Union? Same can be asked for Tsarist Russia and older times. How do historians conclude that some piece of event in history is happened in the way that is happened rather than either sides' praise/vilification?

Kepler published his laws of planetary motion in the 1610's, establishing a heliocentric world model that was more consistent with observations than any previous one. Newton published Principia - which explained gravity - in 1687.

In between we have more than half a century where it's known that the Earth orbits the sun, but we have absolutely no way of explaining HOW HUMANS AREN'T THROWN OFF EARTH'S SURFACE from the motion. Was this question ever even asked at the time?

Hello, I am new here and new to history, and I want to learn more. A lot more. Where would you recommend me starting. Some books, documentaries, web pages would be more welcome. Not very interested in the ancient history, maybe in the future I will be. I'm interested in the history and the politics in the first and second world war. Want to learn about the different ideologies, theories, economic systems, political views, policies, what succeeded and what failed. I know it maybe a long text but, history is very interesting to me and I want to study it more.

Especially when they didn’t get along half of the time. From what I understand nations are a fairly new concept. What made them identity as a country with each other and not other surrounding city-states? My knowledge of Ancient Greece is pretty poor so if this is a stupid question then my bad.

Did the germans kill them for being traitors?