I watched a documentary called "The death of Yugoslavia". And in the beginning of the documentary Milosevic went to Kosovo the hear the people out. And politicians, nationalists and civilians claimed that the muslim albanians raped their women and killed people. The serbs claimed that the albanians wanted a ethnic pure Kosovo. Is there any evidence for these claims? Sorry for my English, not my first language.

Throughout the ancient world many civilizations that developed were ruled by a chief executive or an oligarchy. However there were certain instances such as the Roman Republic and democratic Athens where democratic processes emerged as a dominant form of government. What factors made these civilizations decide to do something different than the majority of their neighbors and have democratic processes? Why didn’t other civilizations adopt such processes ? It seems interesting that either a monarch or some form of an authoritarian executive was the dominant form of government until near modern times, yet Athens and Rome had already produced successful democratic systems. Why were these not replicated sooner?

Thank you to anyone who answers my questions and I hope it makes sense! :-)

Also were other parts of the Roman Empire following that religion aswell?

Hello, I have a lot of questions about how certain things work during the medieval period. I'm not fussed about which specific period or which country in Europe you want to talk about, so it can be England, France, HRE, and any period within the 1000 years. I would be interested to hear all the answers.

I think I have a general understanding of how the feudal system works. King/emperor bestows land onto nobles, and then nobles bestow land to minor lords and so on. That's general, and I know it's not clear cut. It can be ambiguous. But this isn't what I'm confused about.

Villages - owned some land. The minor lord can either rent out land to peasants that pay tax, or the lord would have his own workers that pay in kind. My questions for villages are:

1. How big/much of land did the minor Lord own? And was his land next to another minor lord or was there large swaths of unclaimed land between one village to the next minor lord's village?
2. did the minor lord need permission from his lord on what he can do on his land? Such as need permission to build a mill? Or could the minor lord do whatever they wanted within their land?
3. How did minor lords expand their land? Did they just do it, and if another minor lord or higher up lord had a problem, then it would have to be resolved? Or they were not allowed to expand? Or did they need permission to expand?
4. In terms of expanding land and unclaimed land, how did free people settle on unclaimed land? Would the minor lord care? Or would they try and force them to pay tax even if the land wasn't apart of their allocated domain?
5. Who built the homes and work buildings? Did the lord pay for the building or did the tenants build it themselves? If the latter, did they do it themselves or pay a builder to do it? Did a stonemason or a blacksmith have to build their own home by themselves or would the lord have it built before they were hired? And what if a free blacksmith was looking for a job - would they sleep outside until the home was built or stay in a short term lodging?
6. What if you didn't know how to build a home? What then? (I personally wouldn't know how).

Towns - are those that specialised in a specific craft and trade. My questions are:

1. How did they form and develop in the first place? Were they simply villages that adopted and developed more specific craft and trade, and they simply paid land tax to their lord, like those tenant farmers?
2. If formed and developed through trade routes, are these areas unclaimed?
3. If these craft and trade people decided to settle in these areas, how did they decide? Would one blacksmith decide to build a home and hope others would do the same? Or would a carpenter and blacksmith and a stonemason decide together and then form a small settlement together?
4. Would a local lord care if free people started building their own homes in trade route paths? Would the lord try and force the people to pay tax even if it was their land (unclaimed land)? Or was it always the lord's land, and the free people are trespassing? If you were a fisherman and wanted to build a home, did you need permission or just do it until a lord made a fuss?
5. what would the tax be, if they are not generating food? Would it just be money? Or would it be tools? Like a tithe but for items rather than food?
6. could a farmer decide to build their own farm to feed the craft and trade people? Or would the lord not allow that?
7. how can a town expand if on unclaimed land? Wouldn't they be restricted by the local lord? Or if part of the lord's land, would they need permission or could they just expand?

Cities - it has more trading and specialists. It has guilds and has civics. My questions are:

1. How did cities form and develop? Are they simply towns that grew in more diverse jobs?
2. Were cities developed on unclaimed land or did they develop within the confines of a lord's land?
3. were cities ruled by a lord or were they lordless? If on unclaimed land, would a lord try and force the cities to pay tax? Or would the lord have no power?
4. if a city had a shire reeve (sheriff), did this mean they were a lord or just simply a profession a lord hired?
5. was a mayor always a lord? Could a lord be a mayor? Who would have more power, a lord or a mayor within a city?
6. how and what would taxes be? If a city was overseen by a lord, would the people just pay via money to the collector or could it be produce and items?
7. what does the lord do with the money? Give it to the higher lord or king? Or keep it and distribute it within their own domain?

Free cities -

1. Why would free cities (imperial cities) choose to be subordinate to a king/emperor but not their local lord? Why would the lord accept this? Or do they not have a choice? Could a city choose not to be subordinate to any lord king or minor? That would make them a city state?
2. How would free cities (imperial cities) expand? How do they determine what's their land versus the land belonging to a king and lord? Could a city buy a lord's land? Would that land no longer be part of the kingdom and now be part of a city state? Would a king allow this? But if the king can't threaten them with force? Has the king just lost land and territory (by being bought out)?

---

If possible, could you answer each question in the same format that I have written them?

Thank you

I have read extensively about the demonization and emasculation of Asian men in Hollywood history from Sessue Hayakawa onwards, and am aware that (for example) anti-Japanese sentiment fueled general anti-Asian backlash in America during that era.

However, being an Asian American male, I still find Asian accents unattractive - in general the morphemes sound more "crass" and "rough," almost comical, as opposed to British/French accents which sound polished or aristocratic. Speaking purely empirically, I've heard people say "wow that British accent is so hot" but never the same for Chinese accents.

I'm curious whether this is ONLY a function of trained historical associations that have been implanted in our culture, or if the human ear possesses a natural "liking" for certain phonetic structures and will classify those sounds as "auditorily pleasing" while "disliking" other phonetic combinations. In other words, if Asians hadn't been demonized in American culture, would we still naturally find Asian accents unattractive (a la the bouba/kiki effect where certain sounds are automatically mapped to round or sharp shapes - maybe a similar mapping exists for "pleasing" vs "unpleasing" accents?)

I realize this question strays into linguistic analysis as well as historical, so if there is a primarily historical answer about the association of Asian accents with unattractiveness, please feel free to provide those, specifically in relation to Asian history in America.

To my knowledge, of the 50 states ever created, only 2 have ever been substantially reorganized:

1. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise allowed Massachusetts to break off non-contiguous Maine into its own state
2. In 1861, the anti-slave counties of Virginia seceded during the Civil War to create the pro-Union state of West Virginia

Even after multiple democratic revolutions and world wars, European countries reorganize and rename their subnational entities much more frequently - England in 1994 and 2004; Germany in 1990 and 1996; France in 1982 and 2014.

This may be biased from reading primarily western sources, but what examples are there of other countries with as durable subnational entities as the USA's states?

What I mean by this is, how exactly did people’s conception of the human spirit, the human mind and the afterlife change, as a consequence of Christianity? Or, to put a date to these things, how did the average Roman person’s idea of the soul change between 1AD and 200AD, when Christian ideas had become widespread? To what extent is this a question we can answer?

And, O most noble historians of Reddit, where, historically, did the idea of souls- by which I mean, the idea that there is a continuation of the human mind that is eternal- come from? How much can we credit Christianity with this, and how much do our ideas about such things hearken to prior religions, or even to prehistoric human behaviour (I’m thinking of prehistoric cultures who performed elaborate burials, for example)?

Hey Everyone,

I have quite a controversial question. When I was scrolling the news online I stumbled on an article about an Austrian woman's conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile. I read the reason she was convicted was because she was denigrating a religion without the intention of contributing to a public debate. But they did not say anything about her being wrong. Was she right about this?

I tried to look on online for information about this, but I couldn't find anything informal and serious. (Hate speech mostly...)

Could someone provide me a good objective answer?

I ask this purely out of curiosity. I don't have the intention to offend anyone or any religion.

I recently heard that the Boers were some of the first people to use trenches during the second Anglo-boer war of 1898-1902. This was well before WW1. Can anyone verify this? Does anyone have any more information about it?

I am currently reading, 'My name is Red' by the acclaimed Turkish author, Orhan Pamuk. In the book, as part of casual conversations or character thoughts there are several allusions to homosexual relations between an old person and young man (an apprentice?).

Sometimes these are attributed to the other sect (or other person) to indicate that the people people engaging in such relationship are bad and immoral. However, there are even instances where it seems that homosexual relations between an old patron or master and a young slave was accepted by the society of the times. Though such homosexual relations are not mentioned in the context of marriage. Marital relations seem to be exclusively heterogeneous. Also these relationships seem to be exploitative with respect to slaves and apprentices (rather than among two people of equal power).

I wanted to know, whether such homosexual relations as described above were part of normal social milieu in medieval Turkey/ Ottoman empire?

The time period when the events in the books takes place is 1591 during the rule of Ottoman Sultan Murat III.

I'm looking for trustworthy biographies on George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Alexander Hamilton

I noticed that many old castle designs had some sort of highly protected gate house that seemed to lead straight to a huge courtyard in the middle of which was the keep.

I was wondering if there were castles whose main entrance lead to the corridors/guard rooms in the outer walls? Such a design in my thinking would have been much more defensible in the sense that the attackers would have to conquer the entire outer wall structure before even getting to the courtyard.

Thanks.

I know the general layout of trenches, but how did the digging start? Did one army get there first if so why didn't they shoot the a posing army while they are digging? Who put the barbed wire in no man's land and how? Thanks in advance.

Was poor eyesight a hindrance in the way other disabilities are imagined today? Would it disqualify a ruler for leadership like another physical defect? Was being able to see well half of being a talented hunter or warrior? Are there records of monks or other scholars who had to stop reading and writing because of poor vision?

I realize this is a broad question that doesn't specify cultural or historical contexts, but being able to "fix" poor vision seems like something we just take for granted today and I wanted some insight into how people imagined eyesight in the past.

I'm currently working on a project where I'm diving deep into British folklore, specifically creatures. In doing this research I've found that everything is really complicated and intertwined. If anyone has suggestions on good reference material it would be extremely helpful, as I really want to cross-reference to make sure I capture everything correctly.

I'm currently reading through British Goblins: Welsh Folk-lore, Fairy Mythology, Legend and Traditions which has been incredibly helpful if anyone knows of similar sources. Also feel free to throw out good references to folklore from other cultures. I'll probably expand into other cultures at some point, but right now I'm specifically focusing on the UK and surrounding area. Thanks in advance!

What was the role of the living former Presidents in the conflict? Did they take sides and perform any role in the conflict either militarily or in administration? Or perhaps play a role in trying to stop the outbreak of war?

In conversation, the question came up whether any past presidents had fled or left the country following the end of their term - I'm guessing none of them have fled, but surely it's possible one or more in history decided "cool, I was in charge but now I'm out"?