Catalhoyuk raises some interesting questions about that b/c it's a town entirely without roads. All the houses were built abutting each other and people walked across roofs and entered and exited through the roof. And it's one one of the oldest known towns.

You haven’t thought about coastal or river settlements, have you? That’s where it all starts …

Interesting question. I guess it comes down to how you define a town and a road

The "road". Passes, rivers, low plains, and anywhere else that people find easier to traverse are where most towns developed. These pathways would intersect and if there was enough people passing through to support full-time occupation, a town would develop.

[deleted]

Basically, keys kind of come hand in hand with the invention of the starter motor.

Prior to that, you had cranks on the front of the car. On Dodge vehicles they were colloquially known as wrist breakers due to the quirks of their operation.

As for separate door and ignition keys... that is exceedingly uncommon these days, but seems, to my knowledge, to be a quirk of the Detroit Big 3. These days, basically every vehicle is keyed the same door and ignition.

Well, when it came to starting them, they used to have a crank they would insert at the front of the car and turn it on order to get the engine running. Not sure when they switched to a key ignition.

Simple answer - they weren’t painted from life.

Intact tombs were an exception to the usual system of partage in which finds were divided between Egypt and the institutions sponsoring excavations. To quote Carnarvon’s permit,

>Mummies of the Kings, of Princes, and of High Priests, together with their coffins and sarcophagi, shall remain the property of the Antiquities Service.

>Tombs which are discovered intact, together with all objects they may contain, shall be handed over to the Museum whole and without division.

During the battle of Arnhem in 1944, the St Elisabeth Hospital was a hospital in ARnhem. A medical unit of the British 1st Airborne Division, the 16th Parachute Field Ambulance, went to the building on 17 September 1944 to take care of the wounded of the 1st Parachute Brigade there. They arrived early in the evening and found, in addition to Dutch medical staff, a German medical unit, both busy tending to wounded of both sides. The British took over control of the hospital but allowed the Germans to keep working here. From that moment, Dutch, British and German medical staff work together to take care of incoming wounded from both sides.

The Hospital found itself in the front line on 18 September. While the war was raging outside, the people inside kept working to save lives. Late in the evening of 17 September, a group of German soldiers was cut down on the driveway of the hospital by British soldiers of C Company of the 1st Parachute Battalion.

As many as four times, the control of the hospital switched from one warring party to the other. When on 19 September the Germans finally took control of the hospital, they ordered the British medical staff to be transported into captivity. Major Longlang, the British doctor in charge, persuaded the Germans to leave two surgical teams behind to help the Germans tend to the continuing inflow of wounded. As a result many lives were saved, including that of brigadier Hackett who was wounded in Oosterbeek.

The Dutch underground, including resistance fighter ‘Piet van Arnhem’, was also active in the hospital. With their help, several British soldiers were smuggled out of the hospital to enable them to go into hiding and escape to their own lines. In this way, brigadier Lathbury and brigadier Hackett, among others, were saved from German captivity. Finally, it was decided in the middle of October that all British still present in the hospital would be transported to a POW camp in Apeldoorn.

It was the Assyrian king Sargon II (721–705 BCE), who reprimanded one of his officials for wanting to write to him in Aramaic, which was written alphabetically on parchment rather than with cuneiform on clay tablets like Akkadian.

>[As to what you wrote]: "There are informers [... to the king] and coming to his presence; if it is acceptable to the king, let me write and send my messages to the king on Aram[aic] parchment sheets" — why would you not write and send me messages in Akkadian? Really, the message which you write in it must be drawn up in this very manner — this is a fixed regulation!

Not really worried. Even if/when AI Bots start writing history books they still will have to be reviewed. Already today we have humans writing Nazi apologetics and it hasn't changed the scholarly view of Nazism. I do particularly love (odd word choice but I can't think of a better one) the books from the late 40s that have apologies in them that the research was delayed due to the Nazis, imprisonment, being forbidden from working because they were Jewish, fighting a war, etc. it's so casual and yet so impactful.

Our main job as historians is to evaluate evidence, we look at at the sources and don't just repeat what they say but examine it. In my work I go down to the very words they use. I've written ~50 pages on ~50 word passages before. So far what we've seen with AI bots (and spotting them quickly) is some very odd word choice.

So as long as we continue to have historians, and as long as we continue to examine these works -- no matter when, where, by who or what they written, then the field really isn't in danger.

Is there a threat to the general public? Sure. But again, no more than the already available things out there, and the fringe and extremists groups pushing it.

> I would like to know however what y’all think regarding this new development

It's exactly as bad to the extent to which people will deliberately misuse it.

Out of curiosity, whats the site called??

1940s-50s maybe? That was a "golden age" of the American middle/working class of sorts, but then the US was the last man standing industrially in a world ravaged by war, China today has to contend with more aggressive competitors.

There is no parallel (obviously, I sure you're aware) because the rise of the US was so dependant on the wars in Europe and massive wealth transfers from nations involved in mutual destruction.

Certainly the early 20th Century was when the US went from being mainly resource-based, to seeing a real explosion of manufacturing. This was accelerated by its self sufficiency, indigenous focus on industrial methods, markets, and ability to borrow ideas from Europe and people from everywhere.

China has industrialised so much more quickly but factories and manufactured goods are no longer the valuable and exclusive items they were: high tech manufacture has appeared and surpassed making consumer goods. Capital is now global so the conflicts of 100 years ago are, to an extent, obsolete.

Keeping the wealth from all this production within a country was not much of a concern 100 years ago: today, all the profit can flow out of a nation very easily.

So, if "China" makes an iPhone but the end user and profit takers are in the US, and the manufacture is done as cheaply as possible with equipment that can be removed, how "Chinese" is it?

Not that we have any particular information about. Also, consider the difference in the scope/possibilities of (mass) communication. The Cold War, in its global context in an age of mass information, had implications we simply don't see replicated in the past.

By area? Population? and how do you define conquered?

There's been a lot of great cities that have been sacked, raided, or completely taken over by a new government, but in many cases the population had greatly dwindled by that time (e.g. Rome in its later years, Constantinople).

Then you have to think about effect and if you're including that. The Fall of Constantinople had a huge effect, as did the conquering of Tenochtitlán, which while not the biggest city to ever exist, did hold a lot of importance to the region and the resistance, and its fall reverberated quite widely.

Might be a bit later than you're thinking, but The Name of War by Jill Lepore is a must read for historians.