the book underneath states that because of carbon dating it proves that Greeks independently developed technologies such as techniques for building megalithic monuments.

the book: Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times by Thomas R. Martin

John Cabot landed in Newfoundland in 1497. But the earliest English colony in North America was in 1607. What were the reasons for such a time lag of one century? The Spaniards started their colonization of central America almost immediately after Columbus' first voyage.

Was it due to the lack of capital? Or to the lack of population pressure in England? Or to the lack of attractive economic opportunties in North America? Or any other reasons?

This can even be seen in art and is the reason why their statues are all depicted with small penises.

Lately, I've been getting into historiography -- mostly Marxism and ancient sources.
Now, obviously, these theories aren't very relevant anymore and while reading about them is still interesting and enjoyable it's led me to want to learn the mainstream theories.

So, what are the leading theories today and what historians should I read to understand them?

So for instance just people who support just writing from academic historians or history from those who have never held an academic position or even studied history.

As I understand it, Thracians at the time believed only in a handful of Greek gods, not including Zeus. Is this correct? How much overlap and belief in common would they have had?

Thank you.

While the abolition of slavery is often described as a moral event, it conviniently occured in industrial or proto-industrial countries who had access to energy that wasn't 100% muscle powered (as opposed to Rome). Republics (and later democracies) couldn't have emerged without a wealthy merchant middle class, which was the result of Renaissance era innovations in financing.

So while Feminism and women's rights movement was a moral movement and an ideology, it must have had some "organic" precursors that enabled it. As much as the industrial revolution couldn't occur in metal-poor, labor-rich classical era Greece, Feminism couldn't have happened without the industrial revolution freeing women of the responsibility of making clothes (buy it instead of sew it), cooking food (tv dinners or takeout) and other time intensive house chores (washing machine etc). So my question is - what are the technological, political, social or financial "precursors" a society must develop for it to have, or accelerate a women's right movement?

*disclaimer - I am talking about an emergence of feminism (i.e. 18th - 19th century europe and NA) as opposed to adoption (20th century Africa or Switzerland).

Say I’m a moderate. I don’t have strong views on slavery (if all voters had a bold opinion on this, please tell me) and am certainly NOT an abolitionist. Why am I voting for an inexperienced candidate of an upstart party?

And if they did, how did they get home? Did the UK allow them to ride the boats back home?

I've had an interest in the Ainu people for some time and decided to do some research on them. Unfortunately there is very little information on famous members of their people. Can anyone recommend some sources?

I’m an Indian male who is 18 years old and my beard is coming in and many people have pointed out that it’s a copperish color. My hair is fully black. My dad and all of my uncles beards are fully black. I’ve been wondering about why this is the case. For more context, I’m North Indian (Punjabi) and also have somewhat light skin. Would taking a 23 and Me type of test provide insights?

i'm quite confused on how roman citizenship would be acquired by half "barbarian" romans (i.e gallo-romans or hispano-romans etc) since both parents needed to have citizenship for the son to be a true roman.

I would expect contaminated water supply in DC would have affected a significant number of people around the same time. Do we have evidence of this? If so, why would Harrison’s death have been mistakenly attributed to pneumonia.instead of being seen as yet another victim? Was something done to address the water supply after Taylor’s death?

So I know that Ghana was Kwame Nkrumah's preferred name for the new country, and through his influence was the name that ultimately prevailed when the Gold Coast colony became an independent state in 1957. However, my understanding is that the traditional heartland of the Empire of Ghana was well to the north, in the territory of modern day Mauritania and Mali. Thus, it's always seemed like a bit of a strange name to me.

What exactly motivated Nkrumah to settle on "Ghana" as the name for the new state? Is there an actual tangible link between the old empire and the modern state, much in the same way that "Saxony" has maintained a sort of continuity despite wandering from one end of Germany to the other? Or was it more of an aspirational choice, hoping to build solidarity (and possibly a political union) with the other largely-French dominated former colonies that bordered it? Were there other proposed names that competed with Ghana in a substantial way, or did it manage to build an early consensus that went unchallenged?

How did a medieval hamlet (up to a hundred), village (around 250 people or more) and city's police themselve? Did this change over time and how? (F.e one around 500A.D in the heart of Europe, 700 AD 1000AD and in the high middle ages around 15 to 16 hundred?)

From the look of it, neither of them were THE country’s royal heirs before becoming King and Queen because they were the one to create the modern idea of Spain and it’s monarch line. And for a society so patriarchal, it’s more traditional to label her husband before her right? I’m confused why I see so much attributed to only her or with her in front of her husband. I thought maybe it was just internet being the wild west, but even Wikipedia does it.

Is this a case where, excuse my wording, she’s reached “girlboss” status in our modern eyes or was she the real ruler behind her husband? Or were they allowed to equally rule the country thus got credit for the work they put in?

The abolition of slavery required a constitutional amendment. But a constitutional amendment then and now requires a 2/3 vote in both chambers and ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures. Even when free states came to outnumber slave states, it seems slave states would still have made up more than a quarter of all states and could have blocked abolition for a very long time.

The only reason the Reconstruction Amendments actually passed when they did is that the federal government forced the states which had seceded to ratify the amendments as price for readmission to the union. But nothing like this could have happened absent a civil war. By seceding, most slave states had lost whatever political power they previously had to prevent the passage of any anti-slavery constitutional amendments.

Were the fears of southern leaders who anticipated a forthcoming abolition of slavery justified? Or did they, by seceding, ultimately cause abolition to happen much, much earlier than it would have if they had simply stayed in the union and voted down abolition indefinitely? Am I missing something?

If good answers have been provided on this same question before, I would be happy to be linked to them.

Did early medieval europeans like the franks, saxons, lombards, etc. that came into contact with pillaging vikings see them the same way that ancient romans saw their own ancestors, i.e primitave, savage, pagan barbarians?