I realize this is a very vague question, so take it in any direction you want.

Before modern medicine, people died a lot younger and in seemingly more tragic ways. There were plagues that wiped out half your family. Women were more likely to die in childbirth. In medieval times, newborns often didn't survive because of issues with breastfeeding.

Did people expect their children to die, and as a result, were less emotionally impacted? (by say, avoiding bonding with their babies until a certain age) Is there any way we can know the emotional states of people in the past compared to ours today?

I have it in my head somehow that the "regular" inquisition that based controlled from Rome was a lot more reasonable than generally assumed and the horror stories really came from the Spanish inquisition that was more an arm of the Spanish crown than controlled by the Pope. Is this true?

I know there was a post about this topic somewhere in r/askhistorians but after looking for 6hours I couldn't find it. Can anyone help me find any links about this topic or direct me to post about it? Many thanks!

I was trying to find out about ship life in the VOC but all I could find was the average experience of an untrained sailor/conscript. How did the higher ups on the ship live? Where did they come from? Where did they retire? I can guess they probably had a better experience and probably came from wealthy families but that is it. If anyone knows anything or knows a source I could read/watch online it would be much appreciated. The more detail the better of course. Thank you

Would Stalinism and Maoism be considered a form of fascism? Is it because all three are grouped under the umbrella of totalitarianism and authoritarianism? Though I’ve read that fascism largely supports capitalist economic policies and fortifies the social hierarchy, the bourgeoisie in particular, is it viable to call left-wing extremism fascism? I apologize for my lack of knowledge on the subject, it’s just something I’ve really been perplexed about.

I am looking for the case Thurgood Marshall worked on where a 14 year old boy was accused of killing Officer Christian Burby of Mississippi. Any good sources you can link to?

See: Kazakhstan, 20.6% Russian in 1926, 42.7% Russian in 1959, but 37.8% Russian by 1989. Or Kyrgyzstan, 11.7% Russian in 1926, 30.2% Russian in 1959, but 21.5% Russian in 1989. The same patterns repeat in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. Why is this?

In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton makes much of the "absolute negative" that George III had over parliamentary legislation. I've often described this argument as a bit of a strawman, since by 1788 it had been 80 years since the crown refused to grant royal assent. I wonder, however, if I'm giving too much evidence to hindsight.

Did Englishmen of Hamilton's day have any reason to see withholding royal assent as an active power that the king might plausibly exercise? Were there any close calls? Did the 18th century kings use the threat of withholding assent to influence Parliament?

I read that Sweden has a massive drain of man power as young men would leave the country in order to fight in the Varangian Guard, as well as for the Kievan Rus and England.

That coupled with the Viking infamy for raiding makes me wonder: Didn't they have anything to do in their homelands? What about national defense?

They seem to be driven by similar populist energies, but was there a defining split between these two groups other than opposition to the Freemasons (since Jackson was a member)? Such as class or urbanization?

Is there a certain place I would have to go, would it cost money. What were I would need to do.