For context, the show takes place during the last years of the Roman Republic, during the rise of Julius Caesar. One of the protagonists, Lucius, begins work as an enforcer for a local criminal, and the scene involves him going into a house where a group of Indians presumably live. It’s implied that they are Indians by their accents, the fact that they are wearing turbans (and some other kind of clothing that is distinct from the Romans), and in the following conversation it is mentioned that they are Hindus.

The Indians had bought “truffle-sniffing” pigs from the Romans and are refusing to pay because the pigs are diseased. So it appears they are living in Rome for some time, and not just some travelers.

The scene made me wonder though, were there Indians in Ancient Rome? Given the time era, it seems like an awfully long way for Indians to travel. My understanding is that trade between the orient and occident at this time was done by numerous middlemen along the Silk Road, so no one person would travel all the way across Asia to Europe or vice-versa.

I saw a picture of an Orthodox Church and their is an icon on almost every square inch, even when compared to say Catholic Churches which also tend to have a lot of art. Why is that?

After doing some reading on late 19th century/early 20th century east asia, I've noticed the abundance of facial hair wasn't only present but seemed the norm.

Chiang-Kai Shek, Sun Yat-Sen, Emperor Meiji, numerous generals, etc. Even stemming back to pre-19th century, it seemed like facial hair, or just longer hair in general, was a lot more prominent.

What caused the change? Was it a desire to adapt to western standards? Was it simply just a political trend?

I’ve read Colleen McCullough’s Masters of Rome series several times. She portrays Caesar as a genius—which he probably had to be.

The crossing of the Rubicon marks the turning point. McCullough says that Caesar didn’t want to take that step, but was forced into it: the Senate’s refusal to allow Caesar to be elected consul in absentia, and the accompanying risk that he would lose his imperium and be prosecuted and exiled on fabricated charges, was too great a violation of Caesar’s dignitas. That’s why he crossed the Rubicon.

And only due to the Senate’s continued refusal to cooperate with Caesar’s reforms as dictator did he become increasingly authoritarian, eventually having himself appointed dictator in perpetuum.

Or was it always Caesar’s goal to rule Rome alone?

I was reading the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis and was wondering about this. For context, Joseph was sold to an Egyptian slave trader by his brothers, became a slave of the captain of the royal guard, and rose to high status because he was trustworthy and competent. After being accused of attempting to commit adultery, he was imprisoned, but was later freed by the Pharaoh and was tasked with managing grain distribution across Egypt. From my understanding he was still a slave this entire time.

I don't know what exact time period this story occurred in or was written in, but could a slave of the Pharaoh have attained such a high ranking administrative position in ancient Egypt? Do we know of any similar situations around this time period?

So one of the interesting factoids you learn when studying leftist history is that marx actually wrote lincoln a letter, and because he was a journalist, published a number of articles covering the american civil war with his own analysis.

However, marxism is but one strain of leftist thought, and it wasn't even necessairly the most prominent one until WW1, the international was composed of a lot of different schools of thought, initially prodhonian and bakunite, and then more kroptokinite as time went on.

So that got me thinking, what, if anything, did the other leftist schools of thought (namely different schools of anarchism) write on the topic, if anything? Do we have any writings from say, Proudhon, or Bakunin, or Kropotkin or any other major 19th century anarchist on the topic of the american civil war? If so, what did they say? Were they basically in agreement with marx? Did their analysis differ? What was their general thoughts/opinions on it?

I have hunted my whole life. I made the mistake of shooting guns a few times when I was younger without ear protection. My ears were ringing so bad I couldn’t hear anything for the next hour or so. Whenever you see or hear about old world wars, you see them constantly shooting machine guns, artillery, and tanks going off. How on earth did the soldiers communicate to each with the combination of how loud war was and their ears being deafened?

I have been reading some of Tecumseh's speeches, particulalrly interested in the 1810 Speech at Vincennes. Were these speeches conducted in English or translated? And would they have been printed in newspapers and circulated beyond their context? Generally, I'm curious if the print culture of the early 19th century America included reporatge and/or dispatches of Native American responses and statements to the expansion of the United States.

I was curious to know if any US President in the past said that they were tanking the US Economy on purpose. I read about President Hoover and his bad economic policies but I do not recall a quote from him making a statement that he wanted to hurt the US Economy on purpose. Every single Republican president (with the exception of Trumps 2016 term) left office with higher unemployment but some of those economies were still good. Thought?

Before the advent of germ theory, antibiotics, and the scientific method was the practice of medicine just as likely to kill you as save you? Considering that basically any intervention was predicated on erroneous theory, like the four humors, were outcomes not essentially the same as if no intervention made? I know there were plenty of folk remedies and natural medicines, but these seemed more targeted at relieving symptoms than the underlying pathology. And don’t get me started on the risks of surgery. Really, would it have mattered to your patient if you were a quack 500 years ago?

I want to learn everything there is to know about medieval Europe. What life was life for nobles and peasants alike. What are some trustworthy sources?

Some examples of what I want to learn:

-What food peasants and nobles ate

-What they did for fun

-What level of knowledge the average peasants or noble had about the rest of the world

-Common phrases they used

-How often they got sick

-what every single profession that existed during the time was and what they did during their workdays and who they worked for

-common superstitions they had

I know that in the early 20th century there were many Italian, Jewish, Irish, and Eastern European slums and I’m just wondering what exactly happened that led to the extinction of concentrated white urban poverty?

Hi everybody. Recently I’ve taken an interest in the real life court dwarfs and the history behind them but unfortunately I’m struggling to find information on the real way they were treated. I know a large part of their jobs were to be jesters to the royals they served, but how were they really treated? Were they treated with a lot of respect from the people around them in court? I don’t imagine so. Were they abused, and if they were then how so? If anybody has any information about this that would be really helpful because I have taken an interest in this topic and would love to hear more. Thanks guys!

I don't know if this constitutes a "historical" enough of a question, but with all the talk these days about how Elon Musk is (supposedly) a nobody and how all his achievements are not his own but rather the product of his mercilessly riding his employees, I was wondering how much of that is applicable to another titan of industry, Walt Disney. His company was an immensely successful and innovative one in its time, but how much of this came of his direct, personal involvement and how much of "the team's"?

In the popular conception Brittany is a "celtic nation" but if you go on the net and look up its culture you'd soon find out about half of it is shown as traditionally being Gallo-speaking, that is - a cousin language of French.

The big cities which served as ceremonial capitals are also located in this same eastern Gallo-speaking region, including Rennes and Nantes.

How celtic was actually the Duchy of Brittany?

Hi, I'm new, just a layman that's been learning some about ANE religions and wanting to know more about the ANE in that subject (maybe I should've asked in another subreddit but this is one of the few I know). I see that sometimes the name of El or his titles are used by another deities as generic nouns in names or El as a generic word for a god, but I wondered if there's onomastic evidence or texts (especially extra biblical) in wich El is addressed by the names of other deities like Salim, Shahar, Gad and Baal as generic epithets? It seems that some deities were addressed as El (like Yahweh) or by some of it's epithets like father (like Baal), but are there also examples in names and texts about the other way around? (El is Baal/lord, El is Gad/luck, El is Shahar/dawn, etc.).

What did the founding fathers of the US, think of the original settlers of North America? What would John Adams have thought of John Winthrop for instance, or what would Jefferson have thought of Adam Smith? What did they think of the puritans, the pilgrims, and the Virginia company settlers?

In the case of its introduction, the English were encountering taboo-avoidance behaviors in cultures (in Polynesia) they weren't a part of and therefore found the taboos of to be odd or less-legitimate. But in their own culture, their own taboos probably would have been so naturally legitimized as correct, justified, normal etc that the entire framing of the word and its role/use (i.e. looking at something from an objective/external position instead of putting full belief in it)...just might not have existed. So maybe they only had words that automatically applied justified status i.e. "sin" if religious and "offense/insult" etc if not strictly so.

Any thoughts? Or relevant sources to share from pre-1770s? Would appreciate concrete examples if possible.

I realize this falls under linguistic topics, but no human language is untouched by the different cultures it's formed in, or the history and interactions there. So...Thought it was worth asking here as well.

I am writing a novel set in WWI, London, and some chapters take place in a pharmacy through the POV of a chemist. Unfortunately, I'm not confident with the small amount of information I've found on the actual compounding and bottling of medicines during this time. Can anyone help me?