From seeing a lot of shows and movies, it seemed like murder just happened. People would see someone on the road, kill them and move on. Or someone would get insulted at a bar or restaurant and someone would pull out a sword or dagger and kill that person. Was that really how things worked? It didn’t seem like there were any real policing and since villages and towns seemed so rural, maybe it was much more challenging to enforce laws?

It just seems like such a small body of water and its Asian coast is accessible to people.

This seems to be a very common explanation for the existence of myths, even used by a professor in one of my university courses. It also seems like a way to discredit myths and/or ancient societies. Is this something that actually happened, or did the people see them as nice stories, but not actual explanations?

Other characters often read aloud to Hanks' the messages they receive over these other modes. Was there a technological limitation preventing multiple telephones from being used? Was it a matter of construction cost?

Further, did the signal lights and radio morse code have specific use cases? And did each of these modes of communication have advantages over eachother (besides the obvious disadvantage of the signal lights not working out of visual range)?

The film takes place in the Battle of the Atlantic, mostly within the Mid-Atlantic Gap.

During the Middle Ages feudalism was the system of governance. With kings at the top of the hierarchy giving out lands as fief for knights and nobility to govern on their behalf . However what about cities and towns ? Were they distribute as fiefs for nobility to rule or were they govern by a city council?

Even with inaccurate numbers (According to Wikipedia a source from Ethnologue says those numbers were taken as far back as the 1980s) I still find it amazing how many languages in Latin America such as Nahuatl, Quechua and Aymara (with almost 1.7 million speakers according to various sources) still have such a large amount of speakers. Taking account to Spanish Empire colonization, what were the language policies like back then that gave the unusually high amount of speakers native and not native, that we have today?

Dear Ask historians,

It is my first reddit post, and it is an Anglo-Saxon history question regarding the Godwin / Godwinson family !

The Godwins accumulated incredible power within England a short space of time. They rivalled various established powers throughout England from their start in 1020, to the dynasty end of 1066.

This kind of success usually requires support from multiple areas. I understand they had connections to Denmark.

Would the Godwin / Godwinson dynasty be able to call upon political support / military support coming from Denmark ?

Many thanks,

dreaming_in_Octarine

Was the shape actually widespread or is it a Hollywood invention?

Did it have symbolic meaning as in "the door is never fully closed, every one is welcome" etc.?

Was it so that people on the streets could hear the banter/music/laughter inside as an incentive to visit as well?

Or did it have merely practical functions such as ventilation?

I’ve studied renaissance warfare intensely and I still find myself questioning this. Bows seem to have a high rate of fire and retain armor piercing capabilities, half of the time it seems like European rulers (like the French infantry in Italy) only used guns for the gimmick and fashion of the thing. Which is truly the more effective weapon system for infantry?

Before the instantaneous communication of the telegraph, would it have been possible to work out the politics and military strategies of the allied and central powers in a reasonable amount of time? Would previous slower commication styles have slowed down the pace of escalation to the point that it would not have become nearly as big of a conflict? Or did the faster communication at least act as a catalyst?

In the Illiad it mentions a lot how they'd strip the armor of their fallen foes after defeating them in combat. Would your average soldier on the frontline stop fighting to pick up the gear of the man he'd just slain or is Homer exaggerating the frequency of which this occurred?

What was the Roman religious tolerance like? Beyond the Judeo-Christian purges, were any other religions suppressed?

I remember watching a video that said the Romans did not actively purge any religions, how far is this true?

Weren’t there so many machine guns that just mowed the Allied forces? How did the Allies end up taking the beaches?

Is it because of sheer numbers? Perhaps, the Germans ran out of ammo? Or maybe the reload times of the German machine guns gave enough time for Allied soldiers to gradually gain territory until they were close enough to take over the fortresses?

How did the Allies make it through the beaches? Or were the casualties on DDay very bad for the Allies and were technically not a win on that specific day alone?

I can think of 3 examples:

1 master and commander, where I believe all enlisted sailors, if addressed directly, are “Mr. last name”

2 pirates of the Caribbean: the character, Mr. Gibbs, who is always dressed as a able seaman, not an officer (or civilian sailor)

3 this book I read as a kid where everyone on board a merchant ship was Mr. last name, except the captain

...

Was “Mr. last name” the way you were to address petty officers and or chiefs in the navy some time ago?

When I looked this up online, all I saw is that sometimes the military still may address warrant or junior officers as such. But I haven’t seen this first hand at all.

And those are just capital ships, UK had 100+ destroyers and 40 pre-drednoughts. I know it was a different world, and they were in an arms race, but still, it was before the total war started.

The disparity in financial capability for their navies just seems so implausibly disproportionate? Most assuredly France and UK are much more wealthier today, no?

I know the Romans used Saxon mercenaries in Britain but I am just wondering the motivations of these Germanic tribes to leave their homeland and conquer/settle the Britain.

My understanding is that there used to be a group of people who lived in what we call Prussia, called Prussians, but that they aren’t ethnically similar to German Prussians at all. Is this true, and if so, what happened to them?

"In the aftermath of the Civil War and the defeat of the Confederacy, there was a moment–ever so brief–filled with promise and hope for a future of equality for former slaves. But the promise of Reconstruction withered, largely due to the failure of the Union leadership to bring the former Confederate states into line."

Which makes me wonder what should the US have done differently during the reconstruction era following the Civil War?

After the Christianization of Scandinavia, were there tribes or ethnic groups that resisted it and maintained their Nordic beliefs? I mean the belief in Odin, Thor, etc, by which I leave the Sami / Lapp people out of the question. I appreciate that you leave bibliography if it exists.

I found out my grandpa is 100% bohemian but it is no longer a country you can find on a map. Good grandparent emigrated to America and they were chicken farmers. I want to understand the link to these people and their culture to things like bohemian styles you see in fashion magazines and RENT the musical.

And maybe most puzzlingly, where did he get the monkeys from in the first place?