So many experts argue that covid-19 is going to change a lot of things and how international relations will fundementally change. But most people just remembered that there was a spanish flu in 1918 that killed around 50m people. But the topic is always brushed away and many aspects remained the same. International Relations did not change significantly and historically it did not have a huge impact. It's as if people just continued their ways after the Spanish flu as if nothing happened. Will we also return to the status quo once we find a vaccine? Was spanish flu really that unsignificant as it is hardly ever studied?

Obviously excommunication and declarations of people as outside of the church were very much a thing for much of history. Are there records of e.g. clergy who were deemed heretical and while they believed their doctrine was right nevertheless believed the church held the power of binding and loosing and/or that if they were denied communion even for unjust reasons it would damn them?

I'm always unclear whether people took seriously the idea that the church had this simply as something in their power, the way powerful kings can execute you even if you don't deserve it, or whether they assumed that being in the right made you safe.

Checked the recommended book list of the sub, but from what I saw it focuses on the Viking Age so I was wondering if anyone knows about those other books.

I've heard anecdotes of Castles from Medieval England destroyed to avoid their use during the Civil Wars, of the Acropolis being blown up because it was used as a gundpowder storage (don't know if it's true) and other stories such as these, and it makes me wonder about historical attitudes to these ancient buildings. When did we treat them with respect (in general)? What would, for example, a guy from 11th Century Rome have thought about the Colloseum?

I live near several anarchist squats, and many of the people look... like anarchists: piercings, alternative clothes, punk music, etc.

What about OG 19th century anarchists?

Did Bakunin, for example, listen to special music? Did he or his followers dress in a way that would identify themselves as anarchist? Did anarchism have a counterculture aesthetic in the 19th century, and if so what did it look like?

I’m studying history at university and want to know how those who have got degrees/masters decided how to choose what to specialise in or to focus on. I have way to many topics and themes of history I’m interested in and need to start thinking about how to narrow them down, any advice on how to do this ? My tutors have helped a bit but not a lot.

In books written by Patrick O'Brian and CS Forester captains of different ships often speak of having less than their complement of seamen. Which is the reason for my question. According to the same books, seamen were alloted a standard 14 inches to sling their hammocks below decks. Was the crews complement a simple mathemathical equation of the amount of men that could be fit on a given ship with this 14 inches of hammock space per person?

Or was it perhaps decided by some other metric like the rating of the ship or the amount of cannons? If not, was there a system in place where the admirality decided the complement on a ship by ship basis?

I've never found definitive sources for the Papal Military, and I found it intriguing that many people have not covered the Papal military. I have heard the army was relatively large, but no absolute number.

The Mongols invaded the kingdoms of Hungary and Poland. The Mongols won the first few invasions but were eventually defeated. Some say that Europe was merely lucky that Subutai, the great general of Mongols, passed away, while others say that the Mongols weren't as successful at capturing Europe due to internal conflicts and lack of interest (Europe was not as economically attractive as China, India, or the Muslim world at the time). While it does kind of make sense (after all, the Mongols were able to control a huge amount of land that wouldn't be surpassed for centuries until the British Empire), I think the logic is kind of dumb in one way or another. For once, we could also argue that Japan was merely lucky to have the typhoons, or Indonesia was lucky for its archipelago terrain, or Vietnam had the dense rainforests.

So what are your thoughts? Is it true that Europe wasn't conquered by Mongols merely due to luck?

I want to know about the kitchenettes, the lack of dentistry, the machinery etc; basically any average joe that concerns the day of someone in the bustling train stations of London or the New York street dweller reading the news of the latest tech. I don't know much about this era but I think the knowledge would make good reference for fiction.

I'm reading the Guns of Normandy (great book) written by a FOOs Perspective. And it's late August and Canada is attacking Falaise. This is late August and there was a firplan where Artillery marked the targets with red smoke but the RCAF started bombing friendlies and when they deployed yellow smoke to say they were friendly, They bombed them more. The chapter was pretty short and didn't really go beyond this. So just wondering how the RCAF would have worked during WW2.

I'm writing a novel, and while there are fantasy elements to it, I'd like to keep the practical details as realistic as possible. I can't find a good definitive answer for this question so I figured I'd ask reddit's historians for research help. This nation is comparable to Ireland in terms of size and basic culture, if that helps.

Edit: a basic range of time is okay too

As I was getting into Roman history I found out about Cleopatra the VII. Which according to tv tropes is the cleopatra most people think of. I watched a few history videos on her. Like my post asking what Julius Caesar’s personality was like, I’m wondering... what was Cleopatra’s personality like?

She seems like a very powerful ruler (if that’s the right word). So I’d like to learn a bit about her. Another reason is that I’d like to study female figures in history so I can create good female characters in my fantasy novel.

So what was Cleopatra’s personality?

For example, when Spaniards conquered South America, the extinction of the Aztecs is said to be caused for about 90% by unfamiliar diseases. Apparently the relatively small convoy of Europeans (around 500), weren't affected much by local diseases, since they were able to overthrow the local power with this already relatively small group.

How come? Why didn't they all die withing a couple of months of arrival?

I am somewhat familiar with the linear tactics of the time period but it seems to me that a line stretching quite a distance in width and being only two or three soldiers deep seems quite thin and prone to being broken in places once struck by musket or cannonfire. What would happen if a line broke? Would there be reserve lines behind the main battle line? Or would that interfere by not allowing those behind to fire for fear of hitting their own soldiers? My question might not be very clear, my apologies if so. My question isn’t restricted to the Napoleonic wars, from what I know, linear tactics first started being used under Maurice of Nassau (I think) and were used widely even after the American civil war.

I'm writing a book for Nanowrimo, and would like some perspective on this topic, since I'd like one of my central characters to be from the lower classes, but with military experience, and I figure real-world systems work best to explain such.

When going to war in the 16th through early 18th centuries in Europe, how exactly, were armies composed and how? How likely would it be for a young man working on a farm or at a trade to be drafted or allowed voluntary entry into a major army, and how would he be equipped by his country/king/patron? At the lowest level of logistics, how did armies function in this time period?