>if questions are only for r/askhistorians

You're literally in a thread designed for questions, so no, questions aren't only for askhistorians.

> then why is the main page always full of well questions?

It's not? (edit: went back, over the past 50 submissions allowed on the page only 5 of them are questions/discussions) There can be questions in the main page IF they follow the rules, these are much stricter than the ones allowed here, namely that they have to show prior research, an understanding of the historiography, a substantial write-up, and have a question capable of generating discussion. We require that because 99% of the time questions asked can be answered with a bit of research, and a bit of time.

Edit: I will add that sometimes we do send detailed questions to other subs because they are more likely to have the base of users that will be best to answer it. If you, for example, post here with a detailed question trying to understand a passage of ancient Greek text we'll suggest you take it to /r/AncientGreek because 99% of our users don't know any Greek and the comment thread will just be full of 300 quotes.

And unlike the movie, the Battle of Stirling Bridge did actually involve a bridge.

Up to the fall of Western Rome, so everything that happened before then is definitely ancient, including the historical events of the Bible.

Same!

Good question. I often see people saying "but that's not ancient, ancient refers to (usually the fall of Western Rome, or something like it)" which is partially true within a certain context. But the word can be used in other areas -- including histories -- in different contexts. For example, you might describe an Atari as an ancient video game system (to use a very extreme example) because in comparison to the PS5 it is. But you could not refer to an Atari videogame as an ancient game, because games themselves do go back into antiquity (note the usage there).

And while it's less common in modern scholarship, you can find works describing the ancient history of places like New Zealand, covering periods around 1300 CE because that's when we're getting the earliest human activity there. the Ancient Art sub had to try and figure out cut-off dates, and while I'm sure there's some work that could be done on it, they decided that this would depend on geographical location. https://www.reddit.com/r/ancient_art/comments/k62ml1/ancient_art_timelines_and_rules/

But with antiquity there's less wiggle room. When used on its own it usually refers to the regions around the Mediterranean up to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. You can use it in other specific examples, but you would need to be specific on where if you wanted to be understood. But it would stick out like a sore thumb if you used it to describe video games from antiquity, or claim that the Maori tribe had existed since antiquity. This even gets carried over in terms like antiquities, which have a fairly time sensitive meaning, or at least a stronger cut-off.

So while neither ancient nor antiquity are older, the term ancient has a much longer span and can be used in more contexts than antiquity. Hopefully I've made sense.

A quick reminder to our users to make sure they are familiar with our rules, especially rule 2: no current politics/soapboxing, and rule 5: keep discussions to events that happened over 20 years ago.

The article additionally mentions some recent events, but this subreddit isn't the place to discuss those. Reach us through modmail if you have any questions. - Mod Team

She had made several solo trips prior to this, which may be the reason you're mixing things up. When she went on the trip around the world she needed a navigator as there's a lot more to figure out with the larger amount of territory to cover.

So he should change his name to Dhrools?