I was once told that one of the reasons forks were popularised is because it distanced eaters from the animality of eating - to leave toothmarks was a sign of barbarianism, to use a fork a sign of civility.

Is there any truth to this claim?

I've read that in central Asian steppe cultures one of the most popular types of foodstuffs is a variety of drinks made by fermenting milk such as Kumis and Keffir. It's a pretty obvious choice to make booze if you have relatively limited access to fruits and grains but you herd large numbers of animals like sheep, goats and ponies. However over time many of these peoples converted from a variety of beliefs including Nestorian Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism to Islam. AFAIK historically not all Muslims were teetotalers even though many interpretations of the Koran proscribe alcohol. So do we know whether there was a push-back either way regarding drinks like Kumis among peoples like the Uzbeks or Kygryz after their conversion?

Do we have any info on what came before the two brothers?

Could he just find an allied unit and say " Hello American soldiers, I hate Hitler and everything he stands for. I myself was forced to join the military under threat of death. May I join you in the liberation of France?? " and the allied unit say "Sure here is a uniform and rifle."

I understand that during WW2 fascist countries such as Germany and Italy would use propaganda to sway the general public to their will. To what extent did the U.S. do the same in order to entice citizens to join the army, contribute to the war effort, etc., and are there any significant examples of American propaganda that would by no means be considered acceptable by the American public today?

When Heath Ledgers character wins his first joust. The group trades the golden feather shown for 15 sliver coins. What would the estimated value be for the time? Was it a fair trade?

I remember years ago I watched "The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas" and one of the things that struck me the most about the movie was how no one in the movie except for the military seemed to actually know that the Jews were killed in the Concentration Camps, and instead thought it was kind of like a pleasant temporary home until they were expelled from Germany.

Is that part of the movie historically accurate? If not, how much did the citizens actually know?

I apologize if my English is flawed, it is not my primary language.

Was reading about the history of egypt in the last 100 years where after 1952 egypt gov had control of sudan and they were citizens why did then egypt leave it so easily to gain independence and didn't reassert control or use its resources and why did Britain do the same?

This can be anytime period but I was especially wondering in America.

Idk rlly know much about history and just wanted to find out

A book I was reading had a map of the Soviet Union which featured an independent Tuvan nation. I was curious so I looked it up. Wikipedia describes the nation forming with soviet cooperation, but then goes on to talk about a soviet-backed coup in 1929. How independent was Tuva before this coup?

Sorry if this has been posted before. I've had a search but couldn't find anything.

If I've got it right, January = Janus (God) and February = a festival but they were added later. So March = Mars (God) and April I've no idea, May = Maia (God) and June = Juno (God) were the first four months.

After that, pre Cesar and Augustus renaming July and August, the months were quintillis, sixtus, septimus etc. It seems bizarre to name 4 of your 10 months. Additionally, Maia was not even an Olympian. How did she get a month named after her rather than her son, Hemes/Mercury?

Is it proven that he killed himself or is it just assumed?

If he did, was his body found and what happened to it?

AFAIK, Han Chinese became only a majority in Manchuria during the Qing empire.

But why didn't it happen earlier? After all, there would have been strategic benefits. Was the technology not advanced enough to be able to cultivate Manchuria before that?

I am currently reading a fascinating general history (Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan). After a period where Europe appears to be somewhat of a backwater compared to the Middle East, India and China, the middle ages appear to comprise war and trade across Eurasia - many competing powers, with none consistently on top.

While reading on, at some point you realise that the usual struggles for supremacy between the various cities, kingdoms and empires has been upended. No longer competitors on an equal footing, European powers begin to dominate in an increasingly uneven fashion. Of course we all know how this ended once Europe industrialised, but at what point did European powers get the upper hand on the rest of the world, and by what means was this achieved?

I’ve recently become familiar with poitin, the Irish equivalent of vodka with a history as far back as 16th century.

Yet given Ireland’s abundant production of potatoes, you’d think that potato-based spirits would have become more prominent in Irish society, especially over Guinness and Irish Whiskey. Why is this?

Examples: Baltimore Sun, Florida Sun, San Bernardino Sun, Las Vegas Sun, The Sun (London)

I read classical Chinese so I've read a number of foundational Confucian texts, but I suddenly realized that I don't know what the Confucian solution to this problem was. I read a lot about "ritual" and "loyalty" but that doesn't seem convincing to me. Did they have a unique solution to the problem of fragmentation?

To be clear, I'm interested both in the ideological side of things and from an institutional perspective. I'm curious if there's some conceptual solution to this problem that I've missed in my readings, and if there was a uniquely Confucian institutional approach to integrating areas far from the center that different from the legalist way.

I mean why even bother wearing it if you could just slice through it like a cheap t-shirt? TV show Vikings is a good example of this, people are killed with just a slashing blow.

Spears seem to the perfect weapon. They had a long range, you didn't require a lot of training to fight with one, and it was effective against calvary. Swords on the other hand were more costly, and required training to be able to fight with one. Even though through out most of history spears seemed to be the weapon of choice, why did anyone bother to use a sword in combat?