I've just started researching medieval Europe and i'm trying to paint a mental picture of how kingdoms are structured. In fictional depictions of kingdoms (such as Gondor in Lord of the Rings) there is often times these central sprawling capitals where the king and his castle reside. Is this historically accurate? And would feudalism function as normal within these places with lords having manors and land within such an area? If not how far spread out would fiefdoms typically be?

I am a Roman citizen living in Rome. I have no hope of ever acquiring my own land due to the latifundia. I have some debt, but I believe if I can make it to my land near Condate I can repay my debt. I have sold everything I own and successfully snuck past my creditors out of Rome. I now sit on a ship bound for Massalia with only a few sesterii.

How are things going to go for me? What will my journey on the ship look like, and what will my journey involve after I land in Massalia? What can I expect to find near Condate when I arrive?

It's not at all fair to say Christ was a Socialist or that he advocated any political ideology but he clearly talked extensively about supporting the poor and those who couldn't fend for themselves. This seems at odds with true free-market Capitalism that the American Republican ideology espouses.

I also understand that not all American Christians are Republicans but that seems to be the general leaning (and certainly the GOP leans into it). Was there ever a time that the major Christian religions in the US leaned more heavily towards social programs?

I found a few posts connecting the Republican party to Christianity but not so much the entanglement of economic conservatism (specifically free-market capitalism) and Christianity. I believe part of it is rooted in the religious importance of liberty and agency (and the implication that big government limits those) but wasn't sure if there was more depth to it.

He has some good ideas, and some interesting points that might go some places, but overall his theories sound a little far fetched....Especially the phallic stage with castration anxiety and penis envy....

I also remember he mainly studied case studies and nothing with any statistically significant studies.

Honestly, it sounds like a college guy named Chad wrote most of it.....

So why is he so important that we still learn him? And what do we learn from him?

​

Clarification Edit- I mean mainly his developmental phases

I’ve been studying this part of history and cannot find answers even though I’m Czech and therefore able to read Czech sources.

Especially when flying over Europe, and especially for Churchill. Flying from London to Tehran would've required flying over Germany, unless a detour was taken.

What do I mean by this. I'm trying to write up some stuff for my fantasy setting, and for the dominant human culture I'm using German and Arabic (two different cultures that evolved alongside one another) but I wanted to use a Greek structure to the theology of this civilization. Would the German language, in this case, influence the theology and vice versa? Would the Greek Pantheon look any different if they spoke Mandarin instead of Ancient Greek? Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, I hadn't thought to check if AskLinguists exists.

​

Edit: A commenter below asked for a clarification as to whether or not I'm referring to linguistic determinism or (if I'm understanding this correctly) differences in dialect. I'm referring to the first one.

Hey there,

Currently writing a research paper on the dangers of "edutainment" shows like Ancient Aliens, particularly in regard to the Nazca Lines (specific I know, but that's the nature of the beast I suppose). Not really looking for sources, as I have a pretty solid bibliography going now and don't want to use you to cheat or anything, but I am just wondering if I am being too extreme.

​

It seems to me that shows like Ancient Aliens push a narrative that delegitimizes indigenous people by insinuating that they are incapable of achieving great feats. It also seems to insinuate that pre-modern non-white races are incapable of making cool lines in the ground when only a half century later European races began building giant, elegant castles... Am I being crazy?

​

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Thank you all for blowing this up! You've given me so much interesting and important perspective. Some of you have asked to read my research paper when it's finished, and if there is anyone else who would be interested in doing so, please PM me. I would be happy to share! Thanks again, you're the best!

I read that they would retire to increase their power relative to the Fujiwara clan, but I wasn't clear how that worked.

During the War of 1812, I should say.

Asking specifically why they were crucified, as opposed to other methods of execution that may have been commonplace during that time in Japan. Was this done mockingly or somewhat fittingly due to them being Christians?

I understand records are limited (and possibly nonexistent), but do we know how folks got along (or didn't)? Was there trade, intermarriage, warfare, or D) all of the above?

I am presuming that they had some travel between cities and some kind of trade happening, did people in the time period notice suddenly that nobody came from Pompeii anymore? It did people ever travel there and notice the city was missing? Just curious what, if any, was the reaction to the city suddenly ceasing to exist?

So I understand that movies or books will romanticized so I want to know if these romanticizations have any merit in any case wether there was a crew who sailed adnormaly fast or if there were any true pirate fights similar to Blackbeards's in Robert E. Lee's book Or could you just straighten out my perspective of this fight is I'm misinterpreting it.

I always read and/or hear that a successful cavalry charge is devastating, or that getting stuck in melee is basically a death sentence for them, however much damage they cause in the process.

But when I think about it, how could a cavalry charge ever succeed? The spear is basically the most common weapon. Just line them up, and they either break off their charge, or make horse shishkebab. (assuming the horse is suicidal enough) I suppose projectile weapons could disrupt the formation, but large shields are a thing the second line and onwards could hold up.

Or was horse armour enough to just charge through a spear wall?

Édit: I understand it’s to enforce patriarchies but why were patriarchies so necessary? What threats did women hold? And to what?

Are all myths made up stories or are they history