So this is a "fact" that my husband loves to roll out in conversation but his level of proof is pretty meager.

When he was a young boy his favorite Rabbi who he connected with over a shared love of history told him this. I think (like everyone else he says it to) that is incredibly interesting and seems to make sense on it's face.

Is there any written evidence of this?

Is there any oral history that makes this claim or ones similar to it?

Is there any archaeological evidence?

I am not looking to burst his bubble as I think he greatly enjoys his dubious connection to both Hannibal and the Carthaginians but I would like to know if there is ANTHING that backs this up.

​

Thank you so much for being one of the only communities on Reddit that still reminds me of the "good ol days." What you all have done and continue to do is so appreciated!

Basically the title. How did it spread You had countries across the globe with their own governments and systems.

So how did communism expand from the Soviets to other places across the globe? Were people from Russia walking to government leaders and telling them "hey you guys should run your country like this because it's much cooler".

The same question can be asked for capitalism too, but I just figured at that point the USA or their allies funded groups to revolt communism. I guess it depends on which happened first.

But point is, I'm trying to picture in my mind how someone from Soviet Union went to Africa, the Middle East or South East Asia and told them how to run their country. I'm also trying to picture in my mind how these people from these countries literally killed each other in civil war over communism and capitalism.

Like why couldn't they just say "screw you guys we run our country like we want to".

Both Anne of Brittany and Mary Queen of Scots were young female rulers who happened to be married to a Valois King of France following an external war. However, Anne de Beaujeu and Charles VIII required Anne of Brittany to marry Charles VIII's successor, while Charles de Guise and Henri II explicitly allowed Mary Queen of Scots to return to Scotland to remarry in the public treaty(the Crown matrimonial to Francois II, which was in the secret treaty, wasn't actually ratified by Scottish Parliament, thus died with Francois II himself).

The scenarios were very similar in some ways: Charles de Guise feared the ascendancy of Prince Conde and Earl of Arran, while Anne de Beaujeu feared the emergence of another Habsburg branch in Brittany or the Duke of Orleans as a significant power; Charles VIII wanted to consolidate France, Henri II and Charles de Guise wanted to create a trans-Channel Empire from the Orkney Isle to the Pyrenees. Why didn't Charles de Guise seek to bind Mary Queen of Scots in France through the public treaty, as the example of Anne of Brittany was already on his hands, and why didn't Charles VIII allow Anne to return to Brittany to rule as a sovereign duchess(as Brittany de facto was prior to 1491) after he died?

I know they didn’t disappear but I’m just baffled how this myth got started and how? Is there a specific time where this started getting perpetuated? Is there a specific book/newspaper that originated this?

Basically historic Scotland uses a Gaelic translation of its name in its title and I am trying to figure out an Anglo-Saxon translation.

Did armies take them along with them to battle, and if so why? Or did the conquering armies take all civilians captive?

While I'm asking this question for primarily Western European and North American countries/economies, answers on other countries are also welcome.

I'm mostly curious about reactions relating to the economic consequences of increasing the number of workers in the labour market by nearly twofold, rather than protests by conservatives that wanted to keep traditional gender roles. Did trade unions support the idea of women entering the workforce? Would they ban women from joining a union?

Beard is synthesizing a ton of material so perhaps she’s on to something or is obliquely referring to an established argument, but she doesn’t expand on her claims or cite them, so I hope someone can fill me in. In her opinion, leading Romans of the early republic didn’t know or at least didn’t think about Rome’s physical place in the world and were instead concerned with relationships. Is there any reason to view the Roman republic as in some meaningful sense lacking a cartographic / geographical awareness? Seems like a strange and wrong claim but maybe I’m missing something...

I learned in history class in highschool that, after Leopold II of Belgium claimed the Congo for himself, the Berlin Conference happened, at which the various European great powers divided Africa among themselves. I'm not sure that I ever learned how it was decided who got what - for instance, why did Portugal want Mozambique and Angola, why did Spain want the Western Sahara, why did France get most of West Africa, etc.? Furthermore, there were some European countries that, to my knowledge, didn't get anything from the conference - Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Russia were notably absent in terms of their African colonial empires in the 19th century.

After terrorizing Europe's monarchs for 15 years, it strikes me as surprising that they'd allow Napoleon to survive. Especially after he escaped and rallied France again, it seems like it'd be simplest to just execute him. So, what factors were the people in charge of Napoleon's fate weighing that made them decide on exile?

Many sources state that during the Genpei war, battles were essentially large duels where opponents would shout their pedigrees and gallop into battle. Some sources claim that warriors would call each other out by name, and that warriors would call out challenges, duel, and “repeat until one side was exhausted”. I have doubts about this, because unless every warrior adhered to these strict rules, this would be extremely tedious, especially with individual bushi being hell bent on glory. It’s not far fetched, but there would have to be a large amount of restraint on behalf of all participants. In fact, in the moko shurai ekotoba emaki, we see Takezaki Suenaga rush ahead against orders twice to be the first warrior from Higo to engage the Mongols and take the glory for himself.

After the Genpei War, the Mongol invasions are said to have changed the way battle was done, as they ignored the rules of Japanese battle. General experience in those conflicts are said to have spurred technological improvements, like higher quality swords and the wider adoption of armor like haramaki and do-maru.

So when the grab for power began in the 1330’s onward, what was battle like? How did it change?

Bonus: how were Japanese war dead handled after all was said and done? What happened to decapitated trophy heads?

What was the everyday dining situation like in royal medieval households? Did they always eat together formally or did people eat in their rooms?

Writing a book and i want it to be accurate. Exact time period isn’t most important since it’s a mix of 1300’s -1500’s.

Thank you!

Life expectancy went down, gross national income per capita went down, expected level of education went down etc etc. Just wondering what led to this bad period right after the fall of the society Union.

First of all, I've browsed all FAQ and haven't found this trope. I'm also non-native, so some mistakes may appear. I hope I'm at least understandable.

From what I know several decades after their death historians start to analyze historic figures correspondency. They analyze letters and journals and take a lot of information from it.

But world has changed recently and we shifted to Messenger, iMessage, WhatsApp and others. There are still tons of hobbyists who write letters to each other, but it became a choice, not main method of communication.

So imagine if some important historic figure died. 50 years later we want to analyze their life. As our imaginary figure prefered to not write letters, modern communicators and e-mails are the only way to go. They are bustling with their private conversations, arguments, letters, dramas, voice messages... Will historians be able to check it? Are there currently any debates about this problem that will grow really large in upcoming decades?

(Personally I can imagine big corporations setting up some "legacy share" option for researchers to ask about certain archives of historic figures' private convos. But maybe I'm wrong)

Civilizations started around river valleys since it is a good place for agriculture and it makes a good place for trade

Such places are:

- The Nile for Egypt

- The Tigris and Euphrates for Mesopotamia

- The Indus river for the Indus Valley Civilizations

- The Yellow River for China

However, these aren't the only river valleys that are advantageous to farming

Other places are:

- The Mississippi river

- The Parana river

- The Volga river

- The Rhine river

- The Ganges river

- The Irrawaddy river

- The Chao Phraya river

- The Mekong river

- The Yangtze river

Some of these areas are more fertile than the rivers on which these 4 cradles of civilization lie on.

The Ganges is more fertile than the Indus due to it collecting more residue due to its size. The same could be said for the Yangtze in replacement of the Yellow River for China.

The Mississippi and Parana rivers are perfect places for Mesoamerican civilizations to go farm on but instead they decided to say "fuck it, lets do it on the mountains instead"

So why don't these river areas house major civilizations despite being more advantageous?

Is it merely by chance that these regions got ignored for some other regions?

Why didnt the King of england declare himself an emperor? I mean the british empire was the largest empire in history so it wouldnt be impossible that it is ruled by an emperor and not a king. (Im sorry for the last sentence english isnt my first language)

As opposed to a local tragedy that slowly got picked up by bigger news stations over time.

I perceived, for example, that the Sandy Hook shooting was national news the same day, within a couple hours of the events. Were the events of the Columbine shooting broadcast nationwide immediately? How would the average person have heard about what had happened?

Was this ever recorded as an issue? Additionally do we have any records of such children leaving their monasteries later in life?

I’m watching Ancient Top 10 and am curious as to why the Egyptians stopped building pyramids after it was such a huge part of their society and belief in the after life.

Recent grad and do to some unfortunate circumstances a never made a good connection with my professors.

What journals are you subscribed too if any? Are there any you could recommend for someone with degree in modern Europe? Mevial Europe? Modern india? Nodern russia? Things you find cool?

People have known the shape and size of the earth for thousands of years, but what did they think the other parts of it looked like? Before Christopher Columbus, Europeans knew it was round, and also that the earth was too large to reach East Asia by sailing west from Spain. But what did people think Columbus was going to find? Were they confident that he would find nothing but empty ocean?

Were there any interesting myths involving the spherical earth and what was on the other side? Were there conflicts in ancient pagan societies similar to that between Galileo and the church in which ancient astronomers were persecuted for arguing against the cosmological traditions in their societies?