I ask this because one generally associates antiquity or history with education, but it is known that teenagers have always been rebellious and free-spirited,But were they like that in ancient times too? Rebellious dreamers eager to do many things?How did teenagers or young people have fun in the past? Today we have bowling alleys and nightclubs, but what about before?

I was reading about the legal principle of terra nullius, and how many peoples have had their lands stolen on the grounds that those lands were "uncultivated". Agriculture wasn't the whole or only definition of terra nullius which conquerers used; but it got me thinking about the Neolithic and the transition to agriculture -- I wonder if hunter-gatherers had their lands annexed by farmers who considered themselves more civilised, and I'm curious generally about the role of agriculture in the justification of conquest and colonialism through the ages.

So, religious wars between Christians are/were very common, and if we take the Middle Ages, the Reformation, etc., the religious cause for wars was quite common. Was it the same level of hatred between different strands of Islam?

For one it is built off the notion for many that the roman empire fell in 476 even though the east stood. Speaking of Rome The Mediterranean was still very much part of the Roman world the gothic kingdoms were romanized adopting it's cultures, laws, institutions etc. The ostrogoths were officially a client state of the Roman Empire.

In the near east the Power struggle between The Romans and The Persians was still the power struggle in that region. All of this of course would all change with the arab conquests. The Territory lost from the Arab conquest crippled Rome and essentially ended the roman world and Rome being a superpwer you the could make the case for 642 with the loss of egypt being the year ancient history ended or 651 with the fall of sassanid persia ending the last remant of an ancient polity that defined the politics and history of the known world.

But I know history doesn't always have clean start and end points it's more exciting to define a moment as the end and start of an era but many also the use the less exciting blanket and approximate start and end points and ranges like in this case ancient history ending at ~500 AD and if we were to use that wouldn't the ~630 - 800 AD make more sense for that?

What I mean by this is was there ever an event from the past where a person died during a funeral, and then someone else died during THAT died persons funeral. Did it ever happen? And if so, how far did the chain go?

Hi everyone,

I'm really interested in learning about the conquest of America, specifically about the situation in the territory before and after the arrival of the conquistadores.

This is the reading list I have so far:

• 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
• Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest
• The Broken Spears
• The Conquest of New Spain
• The Last Days of the Incas

What do you guys think? If you have any recommendations, know that I can read Spanish and English.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

I have no academic experience with history beyond high school, so I have a bit of a rough (and extremely Eurocentric) patchwork understanding of history. To sort of improve that, I've undertaken a project: a multi-year movie-marathon where each one is in chronological order. Some items include Quest for Fire, Mohenjo Daro, Prince of Egypt, Troy, Spartacus, then eventually onto the likes of Pirates of the Carribean, The Sound of Music, The Imitation Game, Hidden Figures, Forest Gump, and more. I have 627 movies on the list right now, plus 120 or so TV series.

Obviously, nothing is going to be an academic documentary. Many items on the list are going to majorly change events or make things up completely. I'm taking everything with a whole pound of salt. I dip my toes into Wikipedia fact-checking every now and then. Still definitely not academic level, but this project is for fun anyway and shouldn't feel like homework.

edit: Even if nothing in these movies is to be trusted, there's something interesting in what stories people tell about history. When I get to the Partition era, for example, I'll see British, Indian, and Pakistani pop culture versions of the event. Just as Shakespeare wrote Macbeth as the villain and Banquo as a virtuous man to appease King James, media depictions can tell us a lot about who wrote the story and why, too.

So - what are your favourite/least favourite depictions of history in media? Why?

I have a question. I know there are people who believe that behind mythical characters stand real people, but my question concerns specifically the option that mythical characters are completely non-real.

I imagine the process like this, let's take Romulus as an example:

«Romulus is a character whose description evolved over time. Initially, some person intentionally invented the character Romulus (this is proto-Romulus), who has no description and no history that will be given to him in the future. Then people unintentionally attribute certain qualities to proto-Romulus, and in the end we get the final result.»

I want to ask you: is the intentional invention of a mythical hero (a prototype) the only explanation for the emergence of completely mythical figures? Because I can't see the other options

Mostly looking to see if there has ever been a garlic god, but if there are actual people in history with interesting garlic-related stories, I'd be happy to hear their stories too.

I've noticed when traveling around, and in my own town even, that often the tallest building in town was a bank in the 1890s-1920s. In my own town, for example, there is an 8 story building towering above the small rural town that was a bank. To this day, the next-tallest building is the hospital at 6 floors, and that was only build in the 1970s.

Note: it is possible this is limited to Southern rural towns, because that is the only region where I have visited rural areas. My presumption is it had something to do with agriculture money, but that doesn't explain the exponentially larger bank buildings than everything else.

Basically what the title says, I’m looking for Middle East Lecturers that are unbiased and just talking and explaining the history of this region. I’m using Sarah Paine as my example because I think she does a phenomenal job of explaining other time periods and parts of the world without intentionally misrepresenting one side or another. If you guys know of anyone who explains this region well, I’d love to know. Thanks.