Hello! I’ve found general information about life during this time period and I’ve enjoyed reading letters written during this time, but I’m struggling to find anything that goes in depth on the typical daily regimine of a noblewoman/royal during this time. I know it depends on the country, so I guess I’m particularly interested in central and western European countries (Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Britain etc.)

I just have so many questions. Was life really as easy as it’s often depicted for the rich and royal? Especially during the Rococo era, especially for the women who typically couldn’t hold much power or make many decisions politically.

What exactly did they DO everyday? Read, learn languages, have like fifty hobbies ranging from flower arrangement to hunting? Or just sit in their gardens, eat grapes and pay painters to capture them in rest in their pretty dresses? Did a duchess, princess or child of nobility have a typical routine? Were they expected to know how to do certain things by a certain age? (I assume things like ballroom dancing, dining and general etiquette, multiple languages etc.) Would they receive private tutors for these kinds of things?

If you have answers or resources you recommend that can shed light on this information I would GREATLY appreciate it!!

In order to expand my knowledge on the Cold War

But 90% of what I see is questions that aren't answered. The 10% that actually get answered are worth it though - no fluff - well thought out - beautifully articulated answers.

I'm just wondering how to skip the 90% of Qs that isn't answered and dive right to the good stuff... how do I sort the Qs from eachother?

Cheers

I recently encountered the debate over whether it's ethical to use data obtained from the human experimentation of the Japanese Unit 731 or Nazi doctors, two groups which perpetrated severe human rights abuses in the name of medical inquiry. However, when examining their experiments, it seems difficult to identify any useful points of inquiry. As a result, I would like to ask: did the human experimentation of Unit 731 or Nazi doctors produce any findings of medical significance?

As I've been looking into the occult, I've come across a lot about demonology, ancient grimoires, and specifically the Ars Goetia/The Lesser Key of Solomon. Looking through it, the rituals in there are incredibly detailed and specific, and most of the material has no basis in purely Biblical canon, at least none that I know. There is an entire list of demons and their noble titles, none of which is even alluded to in Christian doctrine—let alone the sigils and act of actually conjuring them.

Like, this line from "YE FYRSTE CONJOURATIOUN":

...and being exalted above ye in the power of the Most High, I say unto thee, Obey! in the name Beralensis, Baldachiensis, Paumachia, and Apologiae Sedes...

I can't find anything about any of those names that doesn't just trace back to the Lesser Key itself. This isn't the only book with similar material, there's several other grimoires from back then. And the Church, as far as I know, took action against such books, so it was taken seriously to some degree. So then, where did the material come from? Did new mythology just sort of appear in the centuries between Jesus and the Renaissance? Apparently the Lesser Key followed from a chain of older demonological texts, but I can't find anything about where the names and rituals actually came from: each of the older articles just mentions the same names, with no word on the origins. Were they just made up at some point?

Something I’ve noticed when studying Celtic culture (more so that of Ireland) that, in general, modern Irish culture seems to be more celebratory of their Celtic roots (teaching Irish in schools, having it on street signs) than Scotland does.

Scotland was independent from English rule for longer than Ireland, so wouldn’t it make sense that Scottish Celtic culture would have been more deeply ingrained in the culture? Or am I wrong and Scottish Celtic culture IS prevalent?

Thanks!

Hello fellow History enthusiasts and regular historians. Recently I have been reading some books on the Seleucid Empire especially during the reign of Antiochus the 3rd ( John Grainger and Sekunda) and I am also reading Dr David Parrott revolutionary work on logistics and military procurement in early modern Europe. The similarities between systems are staggering and it raises a lot of questions on the validity of ancient sources. Just the matter of financial "technology" alone raises serious doubts on ancient sources and makes them look like complete fantasy when it comes to military matters. And when you get into agricultural output, population dynamics and logistical networks, I find it very hard to believe any ancient army could be larger than 50,000 troops! I have been reading a lot of research papers on these issues and I can't help to notice what appears to be a lack of critical thinking in the approach to works like Livy, Plutarch or Arrian. Sure they are our best sources of the period but save for a few exceptions it seems like there is little application of our modern knowlege of logistics and mathematics to create more plausiible scenarios of what did go on (without political interference).

The Battle of magnesia for instance is one sich case where the figure of 72,000 Seleucids is taken by almost everyone as gospel and is borderline impossible when you look at it through modern lenses considering the technological level of the time (A Spanish historian wrote a piece ages ago for Ancient Warfare where he was able to remove roughly half the numbers just by checking for inconsistency between ancient sources for instance and it seems almost no one else is doing the same -that i could find).

When you consider the strategic situation, this figure is ludicrous imho. With an army that big, Antiochus III could have split it in two and envelope the Romans. Also, the Romans were the ones looking to engage and not the other way around so the balance of forces to be different. Also, the logistical implications for such an army would be nightmarish. Sure soldiers carried a lot of their food and kit with them to increase mobility but that basically had to be replenished. And a literal army of baggage carts would be necessary just to keep such a force moving let alone in fighting condition. The other thing is that early European field armies with over 1,000 years of technological advances were rarely over 30,000 strong due to logistical implications and Command and Control issues once the battle started.

So my first question is why is there a seemingly lack of this multidisciplinary approach to ancient sources?

And my second question is what are your opinions regarding ancient sources and their validity or lack of there off? I know a lot of ancient history is based on educated guesses and these few sources are extremely precious but shouldn't we question them way more intensely than what we do now? Even if proven wrong, we can still take a lot of information from them as in "this definitely did not happen" and that could point historical research in a much better direction imho.

So there are four castles, two of which are also town walls, Beaumaris, Harlech, Caernarfon and Conwy, of all four of them which one is the most strong military?

Harlech has the nost elevated position, Conwy and Caernarfon has too the city walls besides the castles proper and Beaumaris was never finished, but what if it was?

From a military/aiege standpoint which one is the best?

What is the most common holiday around the world? Is the independence from the british or other?

I was wondering if everybody could just buy books in ancient rome the same way as today or if it was reserved to an elite, or if books weren't bought at all and just read them in libraries.

Commonly, if a noble died before his heir came of age, a regent would be appointed. However, what if the heir was still inside his mother? Would there still be a regency untill the fetus came of age or the heir had to be actually born? Are there any historic occurrences of this?

I heard about this for a while and just wanted to know is there any validity to it. I do know that Geroge Ford and George Washington Carver were pen pals and collaborated but I do not know if They ever collaborated on the Assembly line.

I think forts need a heavy infrastructure to be built, miners carving blocks, and so on. This would be impossible in colonial range. There were only small villages.

Is there a difference in how the above groups were looked at and treated? Many films depict SS soldiers actively hunting for Jewish people, checking census registers and such to find them and eventually murder them.

Were similar behaviours carried out against the Romani (who often did not live in traditional housing and may have been 'easier' to identify?) and the slavic people of Eastern and central Europe (some of these were of course also Jewish). Or did the crimes against the slavic peoples come about as a necessity of territorial expansion which then 'necessitated' ethnic cleansing and genocide?