Or did they conduct their own discovery’s that we just never hear about?

In the Desmond Lee translation of Plato’s Republic, section 373b/c, women’s dress and make-up is given as one of the elements of a more ‘luxurious’ society, the exact quote is as follows:

“there will be manufacturers of domestic equipment of all sorts, especially women’s dress and make-up”

My question is, how accurate a translation is ‘women’s dress and make-up’, i.e, were these concepts particularly ubiquitous in Ancient Greece and, if so how did that relate to the position of a woman in an Ancient Grecian society?

I remember reading somewhere that new fighter pilots were given the advice to “Fly five and stay alive”, as in fly five sorties to gain experience and situational awareness in dogfighting. Am I imagining things or is this somewhere?

I know the Wehrmacht was the Nazi German army, but I've read some books that refer to the SS as a "paramilitary group." Were they not actually officially sanctioned? What was the organization exactly?

During WW2 a lot of men died during battle leaving behind a distorted sex ratio. What were the consequences of that? Did many women die having never married? Were there any sort of human trafficking crises, similar to recent trafficking of North Korean women to become wives of Chinese men, as a consequence of a distorted sex ratio due to the one child policy?

I'm hearing this by a lot in the internet from non-western country users. For example in Turkey we can't compare ourselves to Europe or US because they did a lot of imperialism.

I cannot accept this argument because of Germany or Scandinavian countries. Germany literaly lost 2 WORLD wars and Scandivian countries weren't the part of imperialism and were mostly neutral.

So what do you think about this?

I apologize if this question doesn't belong in this sub but I wanted to know how historians contribute to and perceive games like Assasins Creed, which often uses history to add to the story. I've heard people say they look at historic information in movies and video games as a way to get interested in the history, not to learn it because movies and TV shows are obviously going to take some liberties for the sake of plot and action. Also, is it concerning if a setting is mixed and matched from different moments in history. Say if a king was made to represent a Chinese emperor who has knights, alchemists, and Native Americans serving under him, would this be too jumbled up to tell history in a meaningful way?

What was the relationship between the SS and the Wehrmacht like? Were there ever any major feuds between the 2 groups?

What I meant with the second question is a comparison with the late IX c. armies.

It seems logical that any Chinese explorer could've sailed east around Siberia, through the Bering Sea, and into North America. I am aware that there are plenty of theories about Chinese explorers discovering North America, but from what I could gather from the websites I could find, these seem to be based on scant rather than the wealth of evidence that one might expect to find.
So, this bears the question: What did the Chinese think lied to the North? Why didn't the Chinese just sail north and find the Americas? And if they did, why didn't they do more with that new continent like the Europeans did?

I’m just curious why, Romans having all of this groundbreaking schools of thought (Hellenistic and Platonic/Aristotelian philosophies) decided was a good a idea to ditch all of this and basically convert to a new way of thinking? All of a Sudden accepting a monotheist religion, what was the success factor for Christianity?

I have heard that Bronze is actually pretty difficult to create, since it require a lot of Tin in addition to Copper, and since Tin is fairly rare that control on supply of Tin could be a life or death issue for Bronze age states. I've even heard that the extensive use of Iron in the first place was because of the major disruptions in the Tin trade around the time of the Bronze age collapse, being more of a last resort since Bronze was nearly impossible to manufacture in large amounts.

And yet Iron quickly seemed to establish itself as by far the most useful metal, being more robust and much more common than Bronze, some areas of the world never even really had a Bronze age, going straight to iron, notably Sub-Saharan Africa.

So, why was there a Bronze age to begin with? Why didn't people learn to work Iron earlier? It seems like it has less issues than Bronze, especially in terms of availability.

And who were the slaves

After the Civil War and Reconstruction black voters became a majority in the south and of course at that time voted for Republicans. Then white Democrats created all kinds of obstacles to their voting to keep the south white and Democratic and it stayed that way for almost a century

At which point did the image and core values of these two American parties not only change but practically flip? It is especially interesting that apparently white racist southerners heavily refer to the Civil War times while strongly siding with the Republican party, when actually back then they were represented by the Democrats

As in does it use a qualitative or quantitative metre, and does it include any rhyme/alliteration/something else with a similar role? I’ve been fascinated with its narrative and characterization ever since I first read an English translation forever ago, but it somehow never even occurred to me until right now to wonder about its specifically poetic qualities.

Hello everyone, hope you are enjoying the weekend. I've just finished my undergraduate degree in modern history at an Australian university. But in one of my subjects, (which I didn't do well in) I really struggled with paleography.

It was an ancient history elective in 'ancient magic.' The course involved looking at papyri from Egypt and distinguishing it from other papyri. I struggled. I don't understand Coptic or Ancient Greek, and all the writing looked so alike.

During my degree, I developed a strong interest in the Middle Ages, particularly in Western Europe. Unfortunately, my university didn't offer many medieval courses (although I did take one in medievalism, which I did well in). I'd love to do a Masters degree in either medieval studies or history, hopefully in the United Kingdom (a university like York would be terrific).

But I'm concerned that due to my poor performance in the ancient history subject, that I'll flunk the compulsory course on palaeography. Which is why I'm asking for advice on how inexperienced history students can build up skills in medieval palaeography*.

I'm learning Latin, so maybe that'll help. If anyone has any book recommendations, or ideas about approaching medieval palaeography, please share. Because I feel lost, and yet my passion for medieval history remains strong. Also, if anyone has tips on studying medieval history at a postgraduate level in general, please share.

*Of course, there's a difference between ancient Egyptian palaeography and medieval Western Europe texts. I'm aiming to apply in the 2022/2023 academic year in the UK.

Thank you.

Old portuguese/galego were spoken in the northwestern part of the península, as they were conquering down the península what languages would they have encontoured? latim based ones and arabic based ones? beber ones? others? And were the languages separated by geography or by peoples? So moors would speak something, christians another and jews a different one for example.

Why did the US design an amphibious Sherman when they already had the LVT and its tank models?