Granting titles to vassals happened because you both needed to reward loyalty and service and also because you cannot physically govern large territories efficiently and effectively. What changed between say the early Capetians and Henry IV the Good?

Also, slightly related, my understanding is that the Kingdom of France had separate laws governing its succession compared to some of its constituent lands. Did Joan of Navarra gain any lands and titles in France while the throne of France passed to Philip VI?

I've become extremely interested with ancient African civilizations and I particularly want to read about this one. Does anyone know any books that touches this topic?

I'm particulary interested in why something abstract and non-human such as a theory would be the target. It seems like attacking educated people in general (as did the Khmer Rouge), or trying to give physics an ideological spin (as did the Nazis) was more common during the 20th century.

Or is this just my limited knowledge about this topic showing?

So, I understand the challenge of diagnosing a person with Autism even today, and that there is no genetic test for it in the event there are remains, just as I understand there are plenty of extremely smart, antisocial people that don't have ASD, but is there any consensus on whether or not certain scientists from the past may have been autistic (presumably on the high-functioning end of the spectrum)? Sort of like how some modern doctors are always trying to diagnose things like, "what might have killed Alexander the Great" based on historical records, are there any psychologists or doctors who have attempted to diagnose historical figures as being on the spectrum, or is it something that is just too difficult to even attempt considering the limited amount of information we have on people who have been dead for several hundred years?

(It just seems to me that a lot of the most famous mathematicians and physicists of the past (I'm thinking about men like Isaac Newton and Galileo in particular) were reported to have qualities that appear to broadly match things we associate with high functioning autistic people today: a deep and sustained interest or focus on a few specific topics (like mathematics and physics) that they quickly mastered, repetitive behaviors, difficulty at maintaining friendships or long-term relationships, and an inability or disinterest in understanding other people's behaviors.)

Thanks!

Clearly, the idea of there being five senses is not universal. How old is our modern idea of there being five senses? How has it changed over the years? I'm aware that the number of senses being limited at five is also not generally accepted anymore, but I'm curious how we got to the point that children are shown diagrams of the five senses in some schools.

My source for the quotation is in "The Sovereign's Foreigners: Classifying the Native Peoples in Seventeenth-Century Siberia" by Yuri Slezkine, in Russian History, Vol. 19, No. 1/4, 1992, p. 478.

I'm guessing it was for making them more visible to the troops under their commands but wouldn't something like a flag be more useful for that?

I was watching 300 which prompted me to find some actual knowledge of the war. Shockingly, I still found that the Greek nation states were hugely outnumbered, so how did they end up winning anyways?

I have read this idea in passing several times throughout my study of Japanese history, and have heard others mention it as well. That is, that Nobunaga didn't want to be shogun, that his ambitions were much higher: namely he wanted to become emperor himself and start a new dynasty.

Is there any actual proof of this, or is it just more like fanfic? Given how extremely popular this period of Japanese history is, I am kind of leaning towards the latter. But then again, given how ruthless Nobunaga was, I could believe it was true. Anyone?

I was watching the movie Cromwell (1970) last night and one point was Charles needed money for an army against Scotland because they were invading northern England. This confused me because I knew James VI of Scotland became King of England after the death of Elizabeth I. Charles I was his son and was King of Scotland, England, and Ireland. My question is, were the Scots moving an army into England, or was it just for the movie. If it was real why were they? Couldn't he have made them stand down as the King?

At the climax of the Odyssey, Odysseus's grand plan is... to simply lock all of the suitors in a room and rely on brute force to dominate them. This has always struck me as somewhat incongruous with the rest of his story, where he tends to rely on cunning and deception rather than simple physical superiority. Sure, he and his companions hide the weapons, but if there wasn't a godlike epic hero on their side, the suitors could easily have overwhelmed them. It seems anticlimactic, frankly. Is there any scholarly or ancient commentary that addresses this, or am I alone in my opinion?

As the title might imply, I am wondering when, why, where and how did the industrial revolution happen in the centuries-old Ottoman Empire. Did it occur late? Did it occur early but on a very small scale? Did industrialization ever even take place?

So far, I'm aware that the Ottomans never industrialized to the same degree as Western and Central European nations like Germany, the UK, Austria, France, et cetra. But that's about the full extent of my meager knowledge on this topic.

All responses, no matter how short or meager, are greatly appreciated.

Also, if it's not too much of a bother, if anyone who happens to pass by here knows of any good source, article, book or a similar question about the industrialization of the Ottomans, it would also be greatly appreciated if you would mind mind sharing them.

Thanks

Just curious if those guns are loud enough to cause permanent damage.

Why did the US even have boots on the ground? Seems like the Vietnamese had so many guerilla soldiers, and very little technological ability, definitely not matching the air power of the US. I understand the US couldn’t use nuclear weapons, but why not just standard bombings throughout the North?

Put another way, how do you do history? I study the 20th century so I draw on secondary literature, oral histories, testimonies, government archives, personal archives, and organizational archives. But I am curious to know how people who study ancient events, peoples, and societies wrestle with sources.

Considering their population size, border with the U.S., influence within Latin America, etc. I am surprised they weren't more prominent in that era and that neither bloc successfully drew them in.

Even obscure enough places like Nicaragua and Granada were at the centre of important events, but nothing in Mexico

So all the modern Australian states use to be individual colonies until they decided to merge together. Considering that new zealand was pretty similar to Australia in those days so why did they refuse to join? Thanks

So I've been taking a bit of a dive into ancient history, reading books, watching documentaries and listening to podcasts. I'm up to the Roman Republic now, just got past the Punic wars and now am learning about the early difficulties the Romans faced with the sudden growth from a small state to a global power. More specifically it was during a podcast by George Carlin (which I usually use as a jumping off point, recently ordered a book on Olympias and am looking for good books on Hannibal ATM if anyone has any good suggestions)

Anyway in the podcast Dan is talking about how as the Romans expanded and an influx of wealth and slaves that meant a lot of wealthy Romans bought up land and created estates and this in turn meant less of the lower classes owned land. This apparently had an effect on their armies as Romans were required to own land to serve in the army? Carlin then goes on to say the senate was at odds with itself trying to give the poorer people land so they could serve while the rich tried to maintain their wealth and land. Giving the lower class land was purported as the 'obvious solution' and maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't the easiest thing to do make it so non-landowners could serve? I don't really get why it was so important? I mean for one, giving conquered lands to soldiers seems to have been a thing, so theoretically all soldiers who were in successful conquests could've eventually been land owners? Bonus to that, those men might not mind being garrisoned in the new territory so much cause they're owned land is there and not back in Rome. You would also have people who aren't farmers so you could essentially create a professional military instead of a draft type deal. Maybe they do this eventually, I haven't got that far yet, and maybe Dan Carlin just hasn't explained this part very well but it seems like no one seemed to think of this idea despite it appearing quite obvious, maybe that's just modern lenses though.

It seems to be quite important at least at this time for soldiers to be landowners, I'm just looking for some more insight into this, perhaps there's something I'm not seeing or maybe my information is incorrect. I did try to Google this specific question, maybe I didn't phrase it right but I got no answers to this specific question.

Apologies if I butchered any facts, please correct me if I have. I aim to learn. Thanks for any responses!

Theres a lot of people who say being against someone isnt a political ideology, but thar isnt exactly true. There has been the Know Nothings, and the Anti Masons.

What was the history of the anti parties, what did they believe, and how successful where they? Where they a true political ideology?

Thanks guys. Whenever my brain itches I come on over hear for enlightenment.