Many misconceptions here. Plebs =/= Plebeians (in the strict sense for there was of course overlap) and both Augustus (as Octavius, before his adoption by Caesar) and Agrippa were of Plebeian families. Both also belonged to the Roman nobilty, later called Nobiles, which had (starting in the 4th century BC) been opened up for Plebeian families and very soon became flooded with them as the wealth required to move up in society more and more became accessible as the Roman empire^1 expanded. This influx was the more impactful as the number of Patrician families would steadily decline over time. The dichotomy of the early Roman republic of Patricians vs Plebeians was replaced by the dichotomy of Nobiles + Equites vs Plebs; the new order had been firmly solidified by the last quarter of the 4th century BC if not earlier. The Equites and a large part of the Nobiles (within a century the majority) were comprised of wealthy Plebeians. The laws enacted during the course of the 4th century allowed for Plebeians to be eligible for every political office (thus giving them seats in the senate as well, as it was made up of ex-magistrates) and one law even specified that each year at least 1 of the 2 consuls had to be a Plebeian (by the late republic there were streaks of several consecutive years with only Plebeian consuls). To belong to the Nobiles you had to have the wealth required for the top orders of society (as decided by the recurring censuses) and you would have to have distinguished ancestors that had served as magistrates and senators. The only significant distinctions remaining between Patricians and Plebeians were that the former were still ineligible for the office of tribune of the plebs and certain priestly offices were barred for Plebeians.

Note 1: following Finlay I use 'Roman empire' to denote the large territorial extent of the state of Republic Rome and 'Roman Empire' to denote the government which replaced the republic as well as the territorial extent of that government.

I believe most archaeologists would think of the authenticity of a site as lying on a scale and not as a binary property. The most famous example of a heavily restored site is probably the palace of Knossos (by Evans in the 1920s). Check it out if you want to form an opinion for yourself.

Do crows steal stuff, though? Magpies do, but I'm not so sure about crows...

Are you thinking of queen Margret? She was technically neither king nor queen of Sweden, only regent (apart from the time she and her husband were king and queen of Sweden for a brief period around 1360). Her son and later her grand nephew were the kings, and she was a regent during their minorities (and beyond in the case of Eric of Pomerania). To your point, however, her position as regent was nevertheless most commonly refered to by a male word: "husbonde".

Austria-Hungary was a double monarchy and Hungary enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy. I'm thinking of the states that truly gained independence.

>What exactly do you consider the "myth of the War Guilt Clause"?

I consider it to be the myth that the allies solely blamed Germany for the war.

The innovation was that the allies put all the blame on the central powers which said central powers understandably might have issues with. Now, if the argument concerning the War Guilt Clause brought up in this discussion had stuck to the "the central powers were blamed for the war" interpretation all would be fine and I wouldn't complain but instead this was said:

>the “War Guilt Clause” - it’s easier to see how this would’ve enraged Germany when you consider the fact that it wasn’t “just Germany” that caused World War I.

How the myth of the War Guilt Clause has been able to stay alive for so long is a mystery. It is so easily debunked and you only need to look at the formulation of three paragraphs of the three treaties to see for yourself that the argument has no merit.

Why would they harbor resentment to treaties that gave them independence? Specifically, since you seem so confident, what in these treaties did they take issue with? What consequences did they suffer due to these treaties that made them hold a grudge for decades until joining the axis was deemed the natural thing to do?

The myth is not of Hitler's making, though. It was peddled by Ludendorff and others at the end of the war to deflect blame. The German public was kept unaware of the disastrous state of the army at the end of the war as well as the fact that the state finances had been run into the ground. Going all in the German government had also taken on huge debts which they only realistically could repay if the war was won and they could have France, Russia and the UK pay war indemnities. This was a failed gambit that proved to be extremely costly.

Edit: typos (thanks autocorrect).

>Versailles added a bunch of injustice layers to a bunch of places.

The Treaty of Versailles was only between Germany and the allies; it didn't involve other states, unless you're thinking of newly formed states which emerged from previous German territory, like Poland.

There are not many works by ancient sceptics that have survived intact, but one that did is by the Pyrrhonist Sextus Empiricus. Problem is he was not an older Greek philosopher but a younger one (2nd century AD) and he was not translated and published in the west until the early modern era (late 16th century) so after the middle ages. You might want to look into it in case you've misremembered...

The pre-Julian Republic calendar was an ordinary twelve-month lunisolar calendar, not unlike the ones in Greece and Mesopotamia. And it wasn't any less functional than those. According to tradition that twelve-month calendar went back to the time of king Numa. The weird ten-month calendar, which this question is about, was the one which it replaced.

The pre-Julian Republican calendar (dating back to at least 183 BC) had twelve months; it was not solar like the Julian one (it was lunisolar, like most of the calendars of its time). They are asking about the calendar which preceded that one.

*fairly well. There are still a lot of conundrums. More to the point, the language here is not Old Norse but proto-Norse for which our knowledge is very limited partly due to the relatively few samples we have of the language, partly due to how much Old Norse has deviated from proto-Norse.

r/askphilosophy is for questions. I mean, you can ask here as well but your question is more likely to be seen there and since it's the purpose of the sub you're more likely to get better and more detailed answers over there.

Moreso it begs the question why Gibbon, not writing in Latin, would use the ablative.

>We only stopped using that date as year zero around the 6th century btw.

*Year 1. All calendar eras (with the exception of some modern ones) start with year 1.

>So the Sami's climbed over the 1 km thick ice?

FYI the ice had disappeared some 8000 years before they even appeared there. The Sami have inhabited northern Fennoscandinavia for ca 3500 years, which I think you'll find is several millenia.

>The Sami's is the same as "skidfinnar" and they were not all reindeer keepers.

No one's claimed anything to the contrary. Do you think their culture and traditions only concern reindeer herding? Or do you think that that is what others wrongly believe? Why do you bring it up?

Generally three criteria: 1) the Sami have inhabitated northern Fennoscandinavia for millenia (Norse people only settled in the southern part and along the coasts) 2) their lands were colonized in the 19th and 20th century by Sweden, Norway and Finland 3) they have kept to their traditions despite rather cruel attempts to assimilate them.

>What does a country being in the EU have to do with indigineity?

Nothing, but the question is about indigenous groups within the EU so anything about indigenous groups outside the EU is off topic.

I urge you to look on the rest of the maps while you're at it. Take a gander were most pre-Incan cities were located as well. You'll soon find why "generally" was a poorly chosen word which no cherrypicked examples will change.

>Both areas are generally mountainous

No, they're not. A lot of lowlands, plains and broad valleys and many cities were built by the coasts (especially far away from any mountains in the case of Peru).

Who else put up not only concentration camps, not only labor camps (where people worked to death), but also death camps? Who else, not merely satisfied with these, tried to maximize the hell out of the system to produce as many deaths and as much suffering as possible?

>Stoicism was influenced by Skepticism

No, not much at all. Stoic epistemology was overall very positive and much adverse to Skeptic arguments. The debates of Stoics during the centuries after Zeno of Citium, the founder, were mostly directed against the Middle Platonists of the so-called Skeptic Academy, who were those that actually were very influenced by the Skeptics. In fact, this skeptic alignment of the Platonists allowed the Stoics to revisit Plato and make more and more use of him, i.e. there was a Platonizing effect on the Stoa's teachings during this time. Originally, Stoicism had its roots in the teachings of the Cynic and Platonic schools along with a good helping of the Dialecticians (Megarians) and Stilpo (a 'free lancing' 'Socratic', and one of Zeno's teachers).

It's a professional degree in the US and a few other places. In most of the world, however, MD is also for research degrees in medicine. "Handed out" was used for some light hearted levity. I cannot believe anyone would know so little about the education system that they'd think I meant it literally.