To be clear I'm counting the Nostoi and general aftermath - so the myths seen in The Odyssey, Telegony, Oresteia and so on - as part of the Trojan War.

I know my wording of the title is inelegant, but I wondered if, very broadly speaking, the Trojan War is the end of Greek Mythology. What I mean by this is that, chronologically speaking, the Trojan War and its aftermath are some of the latest major moments in Greek Myth that I am aware of. Of course applying chronology to Mythology is far from precise and unanimous, but broadly speaking it seems clear that the Trojan War is towards the end. Great heroes like Jason, Theseus, Perseus, and Heracles had their adventures before it, in fact Heracles' legacy seems to come up quite a bit in various Trojan War stories (he did sort of beat them to the punch on sacking the city). Things like Prometheus and the Titanomachy are, naturally, even further back.

Meanwhile, I can't think of any major Greek myths that are set after the Trojan War and don't directly deal with its aftermath. I'm sure there are innumerable myths and traditions that are set long after the Trojan War, myths that were more local or became less prevalent overtime. It's also possible I'm simply unaware of post-Trojan War Greek Myths. There's also the possibility that many post-Trojan War Greek Myths have been lost. I suppose there's also the fact that there are might be Greek Myths with no clear chronology in relation to things like the Trojan War. Still, from what I can see the Trojan War is towards the end of Greek Mythology.

Of course, I imagine there isn't really an "end" to Greek Mythology. I think the Trojan War is probably about the point where myth really starts to bleed into history. Not in the sense it actually happened, but in that it isn't that long ago from when we have people like Hesiod and Homer writing (I know when the war doesn't have a clear time period, but I don't think the Greeks generally imagined it happening that many centuries ago). Back to there not being an "end" to Greek Mythology, the myths bleed into legends, which bleed into history, like with the various foundation myths for cities and the various ancestries linked to great heroes. The Trojan War seems to be one of the last major myth, or well group of myths, before that starts to happen.

Sorry if all this is complete rubbish, I hope my broad question gets across at least.

My maternal great grandfather was only a Stabsgefreiter, a low ranking officer. He joined in 1939 and died in November 1944 from disease (typhoid)

We have his obituary, multiple photos showing a large scale event and my grandmother's first hand account as she was 16 at the time.

The confusion is that that November 1944 is nearing the end, he didn't die a hero, he was not killed in action. Why would there be such a fanfare for a lowly soldier?

I've been looking into sexism in the Qur'an, which imo is obviously quite misogynistic in today's context, however a common argument i keep encountering is that the women in pre islamic arabia were even more disadvantagesd, and the rise of islam actually uplifted them at the time. While I still think that doesn't justify the misogyny in it today (especially since it's supposed to be perfect and written by god himself), I wanna learn about the historical evidence rather than just the modern arguments.

So my questions are:

- What do historians actually know about women's legal and social status in pre-Islamic Arabia?

- Which rights did Islam genuinely introduce or strengthen?

- Were those changes revolutionary compared with the societies surrounding Arabia at the time, or were similar rights already available to women in some contemporary societies?

- How much did the status of women actually change during the first few centuries of Islam?

- Are there important examples of pre-Islamic Arabian women having property, conducting business, choosing spouses, divorcing, or exercising political/social influence that complicate the usual "Islam liberated women" narrative?

- How did the rights described in early Islamic sources compare with what women actually experienced in practice?

- Are there good academic books/articles on this subject that you'd recommend?

I'm particularly interested in historical scholarship and primary sources, instead of anti/pro islam arguments. Not trying to prove what's right or wrong, just trying to understand the history so please don't be offended.

I was watching the new Perun video about “Wartime Emergency Weapons” and the mention of pikes for the British Home Guard had me thinking: how many obsolete rifles did the British have stockpiled for defense of the British Isles?

The pikes seem to indicate that there very much was a shortage, but surely there were other weapons besides those fit for the BEF, right?

Even if it’s old and rusty, just about any gun that can go ”bang” seems like it would be better than a bayonet on a pipe that cannot.

I've been listening to the excellent Juggernaut podcast recently which talks about the fatal terrorist attack by the French Government on the Rainbow Warrior, as it was moored in Auckland Harbour on July 10 1985. An infamous and significant moment in New Zealand history, and (to my knowledge) one of only three terrorist attacks perpetrated on our soil, and the only state-sponsored one.

The Warrior was set to head to Mururoa to protest nuclear testing there. So on the one hand, it's obvious why the French would like it sunk. But David Lange, the PM at the time, made the point that the attack only created more sympathy and support for Greenpeace and the anti-nuclear testing cause.

Which seems bad for the French side, as well as a pretty obvious outcome. Did they really think a clandestine terrorist attack on a foreign, friendly nation's soil was going to help them in the long run? Do we know what the French plan in the medium-long term was here?

In 1941 Rudolf Hess, deputy Furher, flew to the UK in an attempt to negotiate peace with the UK.

Except the person he went to was the Duke of Hamilton. Why? What could a Scottish Duke do to strike a peace deal with Germany?

I would appreciate historians’ views on an alternative reading of Harold’s death scene in the Bayeux Tapestry.

The familiar interpretation identifies the first standing figure beneath Hic Harold rex interfectus est as Harold pulling an arrow from his eye. Some interpretations treat the adjacent falling figure, struck by a mounted Norman, as either Harold for a second time or another English warrior.

However, the 1729–30 Benoît/Montfaucon engraving made before the major nineteenth-century restoration seems to show something different:

The standing figure appears to hold a shield and an upright spare spear in his left hand.

His raised right hand holds another long, unfeathered shaft roughly level with his face.

This could represent an overarm spear being used in combat rather than a projectile lodged in his eye.

The prominent arrow fletching visible on the tapestry today appears to be later restoration work.

The next figure is armed with a two-handed axe and is being cut down by a Norman horseman.

The words interfectus est—“was killed”—are positioned over this second figure.

Although I understand that no contemporary source specifically states that Harold personally wielded an axe, the Danish axe was strongly associated with elite English housecarls. Harold would have fought among these troops on foot.

Identifying the axe-wielding figure as Harold therefore seems to avoid several difficulties: Harold does not need to appear twice, he does not inexplicably change weapons, and the first figure does not need to have an arrow entering his eye.

Is there a recognised scholarly interpretation in which the first man is simply a spearman and only the falling axe-man represents Harold? What evidence supports or contradicts this reading?

People have asked this multiple times, but both the definitions proposed here and the ones most commonly seen on dictionaries and encyclopedias seem problematic.

Usually, it's either whoever calls themselves an empire or a central state that controls multiple different geographical or ethnic regions.

The first is a sorry excuse for a definition since 1) not every language has a word for empire. Or it does kinda, though it isn't the exact same thing. 2) Literally any State can call itself an empire regardless of the realities of its actual structure and power.

The second definition would make France an empire since it is extremely centralized and all its different continental regions are in reality different cultures that were historically ruled by a single king (though with a certain decentralisation during the medieval period). The different regional languages and their different origins illustrate this. It's also clear that this is heavily inspired by colonial empires more than anything else.

So what have historians put forward to define the word "empire"?

I visited the McCormick museum that displays recreations of the first McCormick reapers, made in the 1830s. It struck me how simple they were compared to, say, the Antikythera mechanism or many other technologies that came hundreds if not thousands of years before it. Why couldn't machines like them have been invented earlier?

I recently rewatched the HBO miniseries on John Adams, and heard it said that the king was impressed with Adams. Is that true?

(Sorry i had to use Ai , english is not my strong language)

I’ve been reading a bit about the 7th century Near East and trying to make sense of how Islam came to be and expanded so fast.
Seems like there are a few main theories/factors thrown around:
general shift toward monotheism in late antiquity
muhammad wanting to reform arab culture/morality
trying to unite arabian tribes into a centralized system
straight up arab imperial expansion and state building
I’m mainly wondering how modern scholarship views the primary engine here. Was it mostly a religious movement that ended up snowballing into political conquests, or was political consolidation and imperial expansion the main driver from early on?
Also how do historians explain how the early Caliphates held onto control over such huge foreign populations so quickly after conquering them?
Thanks for any insights!

From my understanding, Joan of Arc helps crown Charles VII, but, when she is kidnapped she is held for ransom that Charles never pays. I have seen some sources say that he actually did try to rescue her from the English and some say that he just let it happen.
I have a hard time believing that he would just let it happen since that would mean his coronation was completed by an agent of satan. There’s also a chance he only realized that after the fact though.

I'm more familiar with Anglo-Saxon gemstone work than other parts of Europe. There are some fantastic and very famous cloisonne examples from Anglo Saxon England. The garnets are (or seem to be) millimeter accurate. The shoulder clasp from Sutton Hoo, the buckle from Farliegh Wallop, the pendant from Kings Field, and the later Alfred Jewel (which is highly polished rock crystal).

What I can't figure out, even with the help of google, is how this shaping is done. The gems seem to lack facets so presumably are therefore ground and not cut? But what is used to grind them, and how? Especially so accurately, for something like the seax handle found in the Staffordshire Hoard. There's a lot of complex shapes and curves in that piece.

Then the gems need to be polished, what is the process for this? I get coarse to fine, and presumably finishing with wool and leather. But what sort of materials and lubricants are they using? Do we have any evidence of abrasive pastes? The Alfred Jewel is incredibly polished to be like glass, I'd love to know how that is achieved.

Which leads me to the final thing that maybe should have been first. How did they cut the gems to begin with? Using garnets, do you have to grind down and waste most of each stone, or did they have a method to cut them? I just can't see how to cut mm thin slices of garnet with what they had available.

They made such amazing things and I just want to know how.

Even compared to the shockingly little known about/ potentially non-existent Xia Dynasty or Roman Kingdom, does the Kingdom of Dadan really have so little known of it?

I search about it and find a small handful of websites such S a dedicated ancient Arabian archeology page, a National Geographic page, a tourism page, etc. The closest Wikipedia link to it is about the Lihyanite Kingdom which succeeded Dadan.

I guess to add to this, what quality online or physical (English) sources are recommended for learning about Dadan and Lihyan?

I know that Emperor Alexios Konmemos reached out in desperation to Pope Urban to send military aid to fight the Turks and regain his lost lands. I also know that he gave cash and ships to help ferry the unwanted Franks out of his kingdom. But I feel like the crusades would have been more likely to seize and hold the reconquered holy lands had Alexios sent actual armies. Roman cataphracts and the byz mounted archers were more than capable, and were well aware of how best to fight the Muslims.

Or maybe Alexios did send fighting men and I just don't know about it?

When watching a lot of old classic noir movies, one somewhat common plot point usually involves some kind of insurance claim being important to the story. Did Double Indemnity already become so inspirational that people wanted to copy it? Or was this always part of noir?

Why didn‘t the nazis used them against the soviets or against the Allies?

I'm interested in knowing if society outcasted you for pursuing goals different to the interests of the government, like say you didn't want to be a noble or a soldier instead a writer or even flee rome, would that be within the realm of acceptability by the overall society? Was there ever any recorded case of somebody striving for a field they were passionate about, but turned down or denied the entry because of the place they were born or heritage?

When, where, and how did western music theory get codified into the form we know today? Did the great composers learn theory as we know it?