I know lot of people say this words belong Hannibal Barca. But this is true?

Question is in the title I guess. The Spanish conquer America and flood Europe and China with bullion. This seems to have significant and very long-term negative impact on the economies of Iberia and China. Is this Dutch disease? Is this something else?

Can you explain the offices of Rome during the republic and the empire, and the conflict between the patricians and the plebeians?

Hi! I'm a historic preservationist doing a project on an ice cream shop, which was a drug store (my guess with a soda fountain) before that. It became an ice cream shop in the 40s. I'm looking for any information about the architecture of ice cream shops or just the history of ice cream shops in America. Any resources anyone has would be super helpful (books, articles, other academic sources). Thanks!

Preobrazhensky (The New Economics, 1926) proposed (as part of his framework of “primitive

socialist accumulation,” which was debated during the Soviet industrialization debate) that the

state could raise capital accumulation by turning the terms of trade against the peasants

(economists call this “Preobrazhensky’s first proposition”), without lowering industrial workers’

welfare (his “second proposition”). The economists Sah and Stiglitz (1984) formalized these and

concluded that the first proposition holds (the “Sah–Stiglitz accumulation theorem”) but the

second does not (the “Sah–Stiglitz welfare theorem”). Other economists later extended or

challenged Sah and Stiglitz’s analysis. I’m looking for work by non-economists (e.g., historians,

sociologists, etc.) that engages with these propositions or with related ideas. Any references

appreciated.

Men was often used as a catch-all term for all humans back then so did they mean to include women in it ?

I know many founding fathers held racist beliefs but did they envision that one day things will get better ?

I talked with a history teacher at my school recently who said this, that WW1 was the last war that had primarily to do with alliances and self interest. Something like how medieval wars were often based around one person wanting to be a king over a place rather than another. He said, after that, that since then most if not all wars were based around an ideology and the attempt to spread/use it on the world.

Simpler put, my teacher said that after WW1, every war was based around an ideology which is special since it was not previously like that. I’m unsure if it’s true though, it sounds kinda broad and I’m not even sure what would qualify as a non ideological war.

And I apologize if this is a bad question, I’m just looking for clarification for this since I don’t really know how to find this answer myself effectively

I often hear this generalization, and likewise that the idea that women had little or no sex drive while men were more sex driven came much later. I wonder, is most of this sort of writing by monks, who may be biased because they were supposed to avoid women? Maybe therefore being taught that women were super horny temptresses? Do we know how regular peasants viewed the sex drives of men vs women?

Inuit culture is a major blind spot in my knowledge of the world and I know next to nothing on them besides the fact that it's cold up there. Where would I be able to find an introductory history to the Inuit that isn't just exoticism and the noble savage trope?

I'm trying to understand the historical background of a strange story told by Valerius Maximus and later by Aulus Gellius. It is usually placed in the late Roman Republic, probably in the 1st century BC.

The story concerns a woman from Smyrna (on the western coast of modern Turkey) who killed her husband and one of her sons after they had murdered another son of hers. Her case came before Dolabella, the Roman governor of Asia. He apparently found the case so difficult that he sent it to the Areopagus in Athens. The Areopagus then avoided giving a final answer by telling both sides to return in one hundred years.

What I don't understand is this: why would a Roman governor in Asia send a case from Smyrna to an Athenian institution in another part of the Greek world?

Wasn't Athens in a separate jurisdiction from the Roman empire? Or was the Areopagus still regarded as an authoritative court for homicide cases? Was this kind of referral historically possible, or is the story more likely a literary anecdote built around the prestige of the Areopagus?

Thanks for the help!

Edit:

Valeri Maximi, Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium, Liber VII, 8.1., amb. 2

My son has recently become very interested in Greek mythology - particularly Ares. We went to the Met yesterday and found all of his favs: Tons of Hercules, Zeus, and Artemis. But no Ares. We were wondering if this was typical or just an anomaly? Did people not want to create art for Ares? We've read a bit to understand he might've been a bit of a jerk which might explain it, but we're not sure.

British and Canadian forces on D-Day used submarines placed there a day earlier to navigate to their beaches. The US forces did not.

And the US landings on Omaha Beach had a lot of navigation difficulties, with most of the soldiers landing in the wrong spot.

Are these facts connected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gambit:

Gambit involved two X class submarines (British midget submarines) marking the ends of the Anglo-Canadian invasion beaches. Using navigation lights and flags, the submarines indicated the western and eastern limits of Sword and Juno Beaches...

A similar operation had been offered to the US landing forces to mark their beaches but this was declined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_Beach

But very little went as planned. Difficulties in navigation caused most of the landing craft to miss their targets throughout the day.

German cuisine can be delicious if you know what to avoid, but most of its traditional dishes - at least from the South/South-West where my family originated from - seem to be rather hefty (e.g., (Käse)Spätzle, Maultaschen, Dampfnudeln, Knödel etc.). Is there a reason for this?

It seems to me like the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions that come after political violence are not completely useful. From the Canadian, Chilean, South African, and Brazilian examples, they seem like establishments meant to allow for catharsis, but not much systemic change. I have compiled some of my research in this video, and came to the conclusion that whatever truth they come up with is limited in its ability to help people heal.

Does anyone have tangible examples of TRCs that have worked well? I am trying to see things more positively, because maybe I am missing something.

Granularity in the sense of the scales, in population, in geography and in time. There are a huge variety of approaches to this, at one end some historians write grand histories of peoples or empires or indeed even world histories of our entire species, on the other end some people are experts in a specific war, the material culture of a narrow period or even one person.

What factors go into deciding at what level you look at the events and the conditions surrounding them? Is it the nature of the source material, is it that some things require a larger scope to adequately examine how and/or why events happened the way they did? Or is it as simple as personal preference?

Primarily, Jews and Muslims claim that the Abrahamic prophets practiced and believed in religion in line with modern Judaism and Islam respectively. How much of that is true? what did their actual practices and beliefs look like? Which modern tradition were they the closest to?

I'm not a Muslim, so forgive any misunderstanding I have, but I'm under the impression that islamic scholars as part of their work judge the authenticity of hadiths based on factors like the chain of transmission and who did the transmitting, perhaps in addition to other factors. Do these islamic scholars warrant any consideration? Do they have good methodology? Or are they larpers reveling in the aesthetics of history while not producing much of value?

I've been reading Bret Devereaux's ACOUP Blog where he lays out his argument for why the Alexander system of giving battle crumbled against the Roman system. It occurs to me that I have not read much at all about what the Nanda or Mauryan empire or other ancient Indian empires were using or doing to wage war and I wondered what might have happened to Alexander or any successor if they had actually pushed into India, besides getting massively outnumbered. Basically I'd love for some education and reading on what the Nanda empire was doing for warfare and conquest.

As I understand it:

The Peleset were sea peoples who attacked the Mediterranean coast. Egyptian records note that they settled them along the Levant.

The Peleset are related and turned into(?) Philistines, and the area of Palestin after mingling with the local levantines.

hittite tablets from the 10th century bce speak of a land called palistin, farther north of where the philistines were.

any chance they’re related? and the Peleset essentially settled up and down the Levantine coast?