Contemporary anticapitalist narratives sometime compare a supposed inevitability of capitalism currently for globalised societies with the supposed (religious) inevitability of monarchies before the Industrial Revolution.

How comparable are those beliefs in their respective hold on societies before and after the Industrial Revolution?

Hello historians!

I have a question, specifically intended for those who are academic experts in US history. It is a bit of a "hot-button" topic, so I understand if you folks wouldn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. I did study early US history briefly in undergrad but would defer to those who have dedicated far more energy and study on the topic.

The issue of contention here is this: To my knowledge the Founding Fathers (writers of the US Constitution) were vehemently opposed to a professional, standing army, believing it to be a tool inevitably used for tyranny and oppression. Instead of this they envisioned a militia-based system for national and regional defense, as well as enforcement of laws, when force was required (ie forming a temporary posse to defend against brigands or bring violent criminals to justice).

My further contention is that this belief is clearly reflected in the wording of the US Constitution and its context. For example, the 2nd Amendment, which specifically mentions militia, bring intended to ensure that all citizens could be armed in case a militia needed to be raised, whether for defense against an external threat or an internal one. Or Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 being specifically introduced in an effort to prevent standing armies from bring raised.

The context around my questioning here is that anothet commentor has posed the assertion that the US Constitution was written TO enble a standing army. This seems rather contradictory to what I recall on the topic.

Could some scholars shed some light here?

(Please note: I am not intending to say whether or not the 2nd Amendment is valid, or call judgment upon ethics or morality of firearm ownership, or get a "gotcha". Just the context around its writing and wording.)

I remember way back someone talking about how most European explorers to the new world were younger siblings, as back in Europe older siblings were more likely to inherit land/ family business/ be more successful in general, leading to younger siblings leaving to try and find success abroad. Is there any truth to this theory?

I've been wondering about this for awhile...

I’m working on a story where he becomes president and I’m wondering what his administration could possibly look like in the years between 1844-1845

Has there ever been a point in history that is a little bit similar to our world now? Eg. Struggles with technology, multiculturalism, etc?

What fascinating stuff do you know about the Roman empire?

I mean, European countries' history is rich of thousands of years, whereas first European footsteps in America are 5 centuries old (I know there were natives before all that, but were they that many?).

Archaeologists recently discovered the Pizza Fresco in Pompeii. In an article, they wrote "From a passage of Virgil’s Aeneid, [...] it is possible to understand the position of fruits and other products of the fields, on sacrificial breads that function as 'tables'."

What does it mean that the breads are "sacrificial"? How does the position of the fruits indicate that, and what does even "table" mean in this context?