One of the arguments in favour of The British Museum refusing repatriation requests is that it is not the British Museum, but in fact the World Museum. I would say that if there were to be a World Museum, from a European perspective, I would expect/want it to be somewhere like London, Paris, or Rome. Or Beijing and New York outside of Europe.

Well it just so happens that the biggest/most visited museums in the world are The Louvre (Paris), The Nat. Museum of China (Beijing), The Vatican Museums (The Vatican), The Met (New York), and The British Museum (London), each with over 6,000,000-9,000,000 visitors per annum. Compared to museums in Rome proper, such as the Castel San Angelo, which only receive 1,000,000 visitors per annum.

What's going on here? Are The Vatican Museums seen as Italy's national museum, despite not being part of Italy? Why does Italy not have a prominent national museum, despite the nation's rich history? There's The National Roman Museum, but that is only concerned with a small fragment of the nation's history. Britain doesn't have the national Roman Museum, Tudor Museum, Norman Museum, Colonial Museum etc at the expense of the national British Museum. So how did this happen? I'm also fairly ignorant of the history and of the relationship between Rome and The Vatican, so any broadening of that understanding by someone knowledgeable would be really nice.

Alcibiades was described as the main supporter of the Sicilian expedition and when he goes to Sparta he is the one to advise the Spartans on sending aid to Syracuse and fortifying Dekeleia. Later he defeats Sparta’s navy and he is described (if I remember correctly) as advising the Athenian commanders (advise that they didn’t take) before the decisive battle of Aegospotami. On the surface it seems that Alcibiades played a big role on which side was on top (he goes to Sparta, Sparta is hurting the Athenians, he goes back to Athens, Sparta suffers bad naval defeats), however, is that really the case? Or is it simply a case of romanticism (as far as I know he was described as a 5th cent. Calvin Klein model) and coincidence?

It seems like the engineers would have known that the slightest spark would screw them.

Why did the post USSR Russian Government change Leningrad to St. Petersburg and not Petrograd? Wasn’t it changed from St. Petersburg to Petrograd during WW1 to make it less German? Why revert to the German name and not the Russian name?

Apologies in advance if this has already been asked, or if this question is inappropriate for this sub! My question is inspired by a recent TV show that is in the process of wrapping up. For worry of giving away too many specifics (*spoilers*), I will avoid the details. My question, however, is how likely was it for an entire battle to stop in honor of a fallen warrior or dignitary? In general context, this would be in reference to a battle taking place in the European landscape broadly between 500 and 1000 CE. Would the fall of a great warrior be enough to halt the flow of battle, even stopping all together? Or, is this purely a stretch of story telling liberties? Thanks in advance for any insight!

I took a class on Russian history in college and one thing I remember is that Russian culture began in what is now Ukraine. As time went on one of the small states within the Russian cultural world, Moscow, came to conquer all of the surrounding areas, including what is today Ukraine, creating the Russian Empire. It is also my understanding that Ukraine as an independent political entity didn’t exist until the Soviets created the Ukrainian Soviet. So my question is how did Ukraine, the birth place of Russian culture, become a separate place culturally and politically distinct from Russia?

The Statute of Kalisz in 1264 gave unprecedented rights to Jews in Poland. Would a Jew have been allowed to join the Polish Army after the statute? Is it possible Jewish winged hussars fought in the famous battle to relieve Vienna from being besieged in 1683?

I just read that Hitler got his political career fast tracked in 1919 by constantly attacking the “Jewish Question” which was apparently a hot button issue all over Europe. My question is, what is the basis for the perceived threat the German people felt from the Jews? How much wealth did they actually control? Was there a Jewish version of George Soros back then that was constantly scape-goated?

Polls routinely indicate Greece is the most religious country in the EU. What historical factors caused this to come about?

Many years ago I read that a certain German tank commander somehow improved the power output and mileage of tanks. Specifically in a hot climate, as he was stationed in Africa. The modification does not add any components onto the engine, rather if I remember, it involves boring something into the intake manifold area. After exhaustive searches I cannot for the life of me find what that was, but I do believe it was mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. This modification became popular with many Diesel or petrol engines on both sides of the war and I think up until injection was common place. I believe it may involve a supercharger/compressor but please don’t quote me.

What was this rather simple, field modification that improved engine performance?

I'm vaguely aware that Jewish folk traditions include prognostications for the change of the seasons, when to sow crops, that sort of thing. Were these ever compiled in manuscript form in the medieval period, or incorporated into a print almanac like in the early modern period?

Changing the values of the coinage while keeping the same name seems like it would be incredibly confusing. What was public opinion about it, and was there a generational divide? Did the economy take a hit? Did anyone find a way to profit from it? Was counterfeiting a big problem?

This is not an actual history questions but its about historian as job (and i dont know where i can ask). I am in my last year in school and considering to take history in university. I would love to study history more, but the problem i have is that i really dont know what to do after an eventual degree in history. So basically, what are the job possibilities?

During the Hundred Years War, England invaded France multiple times but it was never the opposite. However, France’s fleet was great and even led raids on the british coast, and even an imvasion project was considered but never happened. So why is it that France never invaded England?

After playing a bit of Assassin's Creed Valhalla, I upgraded a shield to the max upgrade and I noticed that the material changes from wood to metal. I wanted to ask to see whether this is something that is authentic to the time and was it actually a thing back in that age or is it a different material but looks like some sort of metal?

​

Thanks!

Does such a book exist?

I’ve considered and/or read everything in previous answers and the faq/book list, I think (though I’m prepared to be embarrassed to find that I missed something).

Everything I’ve found seems to be on particular eras and aspects of the nation. But I’d really like something that traces the large-scale forces and trends and changes from revolution to dissolution. My ideal would be something like a Hobsbawm “Age of ...” book just covering the lifetime of the USSR.

Title.

Mussolini had a high opinion of the legacy of ancient Rome (at least in terms of propaganda), and a deeply negative opinion about post-Risorgimento, liberal Italy. However, I don't know anything about how he saw events like the Italian Renaissance - can anyone shed some light on this?

I’ve consumed plenty of movies and shows where brave highlanders charge the enemy with two handed broadswords. This seems dumb? Or at least a recipe for lots of casualties. On wikipedia it mentions the Jacobite uprising saw high casualties amongst frontline soldiers and leaders.

The other day I was watching a documentary on LBJ and some of his White House staff and even the guy himself used the word, although mostly in private. And that was just over 50 years ago. But obviously now we just don’t use the term. What changed? Was there a movement or a certain action group or event that caused things to changed?

I dont know much about The Protestant Reformation, but why didn't the Catholic Church execute Martin Luther at The Diet of Worms? Was there fear that executing him would make him a sort of martyr?