Excuse my english ,its my second language . We know homer wrote about oddyseus and hit 10year trip back home ,where he mentions various locations he visited. There are many different thoughts about this ,some say oddyseus went into ths black sea , others believe he got out of the Mediterranean through Gibraltar.

Thanks in advance for your time.

Hi, I have been a casual poster here. yet I am serious about history. I am somewhat disturbed about how I see mod actions happen here. Before you just delete everything I do have a point, a question and a suggestion.

I see quite a bit of people honestly seeking historical information here. I also see a number of answers that have some value just wiped from existence. I am here to say that whether you like it or not this subreddit has become a hub for popular history. By summarily removing threads that do not meet your standards it limits the ability of future historians from understanding the sentiments and understanding of the current time.

Do you want to promote historical inquiry? do you care what people 100 years from now understand about our period when our generation is gone? or is this just about 100% academically approved facts? Id suggest that you have succeeded in providing a platform where historical inquiry can take place. In so doing you have attracted the people you don't want to deal with(ie blue collar rubes).

instead of just wielding the stick think about having another subreddit. where you publish certified askhistorian quality posts. There you could absolutely control what is posted while using askhistorians as a source for the posts. Here in askhistorians you would still have complete control but, might not feel the need to nuke threads more serious scholars would spurn; because we would all know to go to the curated sub.

idk i just feel like there might be a better way. tbh this is reddit not a peer reviewed journal. trying to force the same standards is fruitless and frustrating for everyone involved.

EDIT: I did go and read the most recent 'fuck off' roundtable and I respect this. I work as a software dev and i consistently tell ppl who dont know whats going on to fuck off. same thing as open source software and linux if you arent a community member and contributing go fuck yourself. I am still interested in hearing your opinion on how posts made today and deleted could possibly contribute to the future historical record. If I am just a bother feel free to tell me to fuck off, I mean it and from a mod, i will fuck off if is from that combo.

I often wonder how Italian came to be the language used in modern day Italy. I can understand how the other romance languages borrowed/ built on the languages of the local populace and resulted in Spanish and French; however, how is it that the main language spoken today in the majority of the Italian peninsula seems less Latin, than say, Romanian?

Part of Atatürk's reforms was his abolishment of the caliphate, why did he not give the same treatment to the Greek Patriarch?

I know each side copied and innovated from the other quite often, like with the Fokker interruption gear in WWI, but even with that, it seems not nearly as common as I'd think it was.

Example: Why didn't the Germans copy the first British tanks exactly as the British made them? Why create their own version so soon? Or in WWII, why not copy the improved T-34s?

Similarly, why didn't the Axis or Allies standardize what weapons they were using? Other than national pride, why wouldn't the British just turn to making say...Mustangs when they realized how good the plane was? Or the Americans making copies of the Il-2 Sturmovik?

I know tanks and planes more than gun types and such, so I used them as examples, but my question applies to things like trucks, submarines, engines, rifles and such.

Was is because of the North/South Korea relations? Sorry, if this isn't in-depth enough.

It seems that nationalism was originally a radical ideology. For instance in the American revolution, French revolution, the Latin American wars of liberation and the revolutions of 1848 all were very forward thinking for their time or even radical. Nationalism as far as I can tell original had a more liberal and sometimes even proto socialist character. It was almost more like what we'd today call internationalism.

So how did it go from being a universalist, egalitarian, or even left wing thing to the calling card of the hard right?

It's not something I can find a clear answer on and I think it's an interesting subject.

I am also not taking a stance on this issue so please do not be offended. I am merely curious how things changed and why.

Thanks!

I'm agnostic. I've always just assumed that there were a bunch of preachers 2000 years ago that were a lot like Jesus from the bible. Not the magical stuff, but preaching the same things as Jesus from the bible. And I always just assumed these preachers were combined into one fictional entity which is Jesus. But when I look at wikipedia they consider him a real historical figure. Is there any real evidence that he existed? Thanks.

It is very common for those attending confessionals or watching them portrayed on TV to hear the phrase say “x Hail Marys” or “x our fathers” at the conclusion of a confession. Where did this practice originate? Were other prayers or acts once more common?

I've heard them used to refer to pretty much the same concept of "nation where I was born", but do they have different histories? Why do certain peoples use one more than the other? Is there any subtle difference between them?

I am sorry for probably reposting, this seems like something that should have been brought up before. An internet search gives up conflicting evidence so I thought I’d ask the professionals!

Thanks to Tolkien, the image of the weary traveler in the candle lit medieval-like tavern lighting up a pipe with an ale has become common.

But would a farmer peasant deep in the heart of Europe been able to afford tobacco in the late 15-1600's? Or was it mostly reserved for the city folk?

I was watching the Crown and everyone smokes like a chimney and I was wondering if that was the result of cheap factory cigarettes and heavy marketing.

Why didn't the Aztecs, or any other previous Mexican civilization, ever conquer the Carribbean islands, seeing how they would provide a steady source of prisoners for sacrifice? The Carribbean tribes were a lot less advanced than the Aztecs, so was it just that the Aztec were not aware of the Carribbean? Did they not have the ships required to reach it?

Are there any book recommendations to learn more about the prehistory of Algonquian (or even Algic) and Iroquoian-speaking peoples?

Looking more specifically at Anishinaabe, Cree/Nehiyaw, and Huron/Wendat peoples but also open to learning about other Iroquoian and Algic groups.

During the American Civil War, Washington DC was extremely close to the confederate border, making it relatively easy for the confederacy to capture (they of course never succeeded in doing so, but still, the risk was significant), which would have significantly weakened the US' abilities to plan and organize the war effort. So, why didn't the USA just temporarily move all that important government stuff to somewhere where the confederacy couldn't capture it so easily? Sure, it would have been a logistical effort, but wouldn't it have been worth it, since it would have minimized said risk?

​

Edit: the same applies to the confederacy; why did they put their capital so close to the union border?