[removed]

[removed]

The rear view mirror of history tends to point out only the highlights. Regime changes, landmarks, major wars, that sort of thing. You can only test students on so many things, and there are huge gaps in expected common knowledge. When history teachers look back on the last 100 years from now, what do you think the highlights on school tests will be?

I think the "Hunger Games" movies were an artist's depiction of this. Maybe not a historian's depiction, but cosmetology is an art.

The Great Courses has one called Medieval England. The professor is Paxton, I think. She does a great job and you can listen to it like an audiobook.

> obsidian knives were far sharper and more precise than metal knives. Even today some surgeons prefer obsidian to steel, in fact.

And they kill White Walkers. So if a surgeon loses the patient, there's that to not worry about.

Thank you y’all! This has been really informative! Is there tech that is still used today besides knives and swords?

When did humans “discover “ dinosaurs?

>did they do so willingly, rather than raise a relatively unproductive laborer?

It's that one.

Everything you are saying about Vietnam is true, but I feel like you are mischaracterizing the timing of draft and its enforcement. Elvis Presley was famously drafted during peacetime. The idea that we could maintain a fully staffed military with volunteers only, wasn’t seriously considered during this era.

What Vietnam did was contribute to killing the draft, although mandatory registration for selective service continued.

https://www.sss.gov/history-and-records/induction-statistics/

Notice that the pattern is pretty much, more people for war, fewer people for peacetime, and then it tapers off to the end of 1973, because Vietnam and the ensuing backlash and protest, exposed all of the worst problems with the draft

[deleted]

How did royal courts get their dwarves? Were families obliged to "gift" them to kings and queens or did they do so willingly, rather than raise a relatively unproductive laborer? It's said that a sister of Peter the Great owned 93 dwarves, what would their lives have been like? Do we have any written accounts from their perspective?

Honestly, you could have just said it wasn't aliens. hah. People act like there wasn't likely thousands of people over the millennia who have used the pyramid as a crash spot, with easy access to what's inside, and to bring whatever inside.

The term refers to technological level and has no relation to intelligence. Stone age tech is more primitive than Bronze age which is less advanced than Iron. Primitive usually refers to societies who are at the Stone Age level of technology. The Maya were used stone edged weapons and the only metals they used were gold and silver. And yet they had advanced calendars and mathematics. Sadly most all of their many written codexes were burned by religious fanatics Catholic missionaries.

[removed]

While I don't like how the term is used vs it's actual definition I think you're probably spot on here.

[removed]

I was listening just this morning Dr Dominique Garcia discuss how the French identify their ancestors as "Gauls/Gaulois" because they are the first cited population associated to that given area. Of course there was some other populations occupying this territory before, but there's no written history about them so they would fall into the "prehistoric populations" category for most people.

[removed]

[removed]

I've listened to it and second that recommendation. The "13 minutes" is the amount of time it took for the Eagle to leave the orbiter and fall to the moon's surface. The episodes go through the history of the mission and the construction of the spaceship.

Finally, they play the entire 13-minute sequence. By that time, you understand the meaning of every communication between Eagle and Houston, all of the warning codes and calls and responses. It's good stuff.

The practice of splitting the kingdom between sons (e.g. Charlemagne's heirs) was intended to prevent conflict because of there being only one heir to the throne. And, in other areas where primigeniture wasn't the rule (Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Ottomans, etc) it just wouldn't happen.

In addition, you did have cases where the ruling king (or queen) set their preferred candidate as heir, which was then ignored after death (the events leading to the Anarchy in England being a good example).

In extreme cases, the ruling king could have disqualified a disfavored heir by forcing them to join a monastery, disinheriting them for some reason, or possibly trumping up a charge against them, but I can't think of an example offhand better than Justinian having Belisarius blinded, which is only barely applicable.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]