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 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’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 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 been reading a lot on the history Buddhism and Stoicism lately, and something I've consistently wondered is why it seems that ancient (particularly) ethical philosophy seemed to originate in these particular locations as opposed to elsewhere. I've heard the argument that other places just didn't write down their philosophy or didn't have it preserved, but I feel like that's maybe a flimsy argument. Maybe it's also just that I'm ignorant to philosophies that were produces in other areas, and I'll totally admit that's a possibility.

But it seems as though India, Greece, and China were somewhat special in their adoption of philosophy studies. In India there was Yoga, Jainism, Buddhism, Ajivika, etc. In China there was Confucianism, Daoism, and many more (hell they even had a period called the Hundred Schools of Thought). And Greece brought to us Cynicism, Stoicism, Hedonism, and more.

Meanwhile other technologically developed areas with writing systems, like Persia, Etruria, Phoenicia, and Egypt did not seem to have a similar focus on philosophy in the same vein as the ones pointed out earlier, at least that I'm aware of. Why is this? The other areas seem to fit similar geographical constraints as the other three (in some cases mountainous, in some cases oceanic, and others on flood plains). Or is this just an instance where cultures are different, and the explanation is as simple as that?

I searched and I found only a very old answer on this topic, and I'm curious about where the idea came from, how it was done, and how shocking it was at the time. For no special reason, I am curious about what seems to me like an almost unilateral move by one guy who happened to be president which maybe disrupted the entire world's economic order.

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 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.

We seem to know a good deal about Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome during the early part of antiquity, but what was happening in the rest of Europe and why does it seem like we know so little?

From doing some light research on the internet it seems like we know there were people living in places like what is now Germany/Austria (Hallstatt, Jastorf cultures) and that they did have trade connections to Greece, but hardly anything specific. Is it simply a matter of people outside Greece not writing anything down? If that's the case why wouldn't they be writing, if they had contact with people who did write?

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?

Was it primarily a marketing phenomenon or were there other factors at play? What set them apart from other similar regions, for example, Spain? Are there historical examples of regions or products that were similarly dominant or preferred in fashion/beauty during previous eras or in different areas?

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?

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

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the topic, but as far as I understand it, Catholic Monarchs derived at least part of their claim to rule over an area that they have been chosen by God to rule and protect the peasants living on their land and that this was also reinforced by the church to legitimize the class structure of Peasentry, Clergy and Nobles.

However wouldn't Rulers of Italian Republics contradict that image of "God's chosen" Monarchs being needed to protect the people?

Furthermore were there ever Royals who considered those Republics as potential threats to their hereditary rule? (Similar to how European empires feared that revolutionary ideals would spread to their people after the French revolution)

What explains the mass appeal of the Militant Tendency and Trotskyism in Liverpool in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s? Did organised Trotskyism find anywhere near this success in any other cities in Europe?

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?

My grandma always told me how her sisters were taller and prettier than she was, and in general I thought that was just gene lottery. But today I realized her sisters were already teenagers when the war started, whereas gramma was born in 1940. So I was just wondering if food shortages while she was growing up might've played a part in this. Are there any statistics that can shed light on this? For reference, she was Romanian and grew up in North-Western Transylvania (the part that was occupied by Hungary during the war), but I'm guessing large swathes of Europe had similar issues, so any numbers you're aware of would be interesting to look at. Thanks for reading!

Or was it just a tool to further undermine the waning european powers still standing in the way of the american global hegemony by making them lose their colonies?

Title.

To be more precise, I'm curious to know what affected the respective countries more and what was more thorough. It does seem like more Japanese war criminals were executed than German, but very few civilians who might have had a hand in forming whatever ideology Japan had in WW2 were even persecuted (excluding Okawa Shumei).

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"?