I'm watching the Dr. Who episode about Shakespeare. I just told my friend that the Globe Theater isn't there anymore. He said, "Why would they do that?" Well, probably because Shakespeare wasn't considered a genius back then. Which got me to wondering, "When did people start to think of Shakespeare as a playwright who should be studied?'

I'm not sure if Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes ignited interest in the subject, or if it was the White Chapel murders, but I can't seem to think of a time earlier than that where "murder mysteries" seemed mainstream (though I admit I'm not well educated on the subject, and I'm only familiar with British and American history). I know the idea of crimes and law enforcement has changed dramatically over the course of human history, but was there a time when the art of investigation first started capturing the public interest?

It is reported in recent years that Henry killed 57,000 people during his reign and Mary I killed 300. So why is it Henry is not referred to as bloody Henry?

I've slowly been building up a fascination with Cold War Germany and most specifically Berlin from the late 70s to early 90s, probably because of my obsession with pop, punk and new wave genres. One thing I've seen often sort of shown in a lot of media about the city (that I have also been able to find little actual information around) is that the night life of West Berlin was apparently freaking wild in about that stretch of time. Artists going bohemian like Bowie, drugs, rock and roll and LGBT clubbing everywhere, punks and leftists and street gangs all in the midst of this divided and occupied city. Of course famously everyone remembers the images of those same punks then taking the pickaxes to the wall itself.

Is there any evidence that West Berlin did in fact have a particularly popping night life? Or was this just the general vibe you'd find in most cities of the time? And how did a city that was so divided and at the literal front lines of the Cold War become a hotspot for culture? Did that have any contribution or effect on the unrest that would bring the wall and the east down?

According to the book, it details that Zhuge Liang (Kongming), during his southern campaign, fought the Nanman tribe. In the description of the Nanman king, it says he chain mail made from rhinoceroses hides. It seems based on maps that the closest Rhinoceroses to China would have been in India. A more historical approach says that the Nanman tribe wasn’t the only one to be fought. Was it possible that Indian tribes would have been fighting? My personal bases for coming up with this question is that, unless the Nanman tribe traded with the Indonesians, how would they have had rhinoceros hide?

I am finding on Wikipedia that Mandodari was the daughter of the god Maya. I am not finding anything connecting Maya to the Mayan civilization in Mexico. Is this a simple misinterpretation?

I found that King Ravna may have been based on a king from around 2500 BC, much earlier than the Mayan civilization.

Was receiving a gift from an opponent (like the Trojan horse) unusual in and of itself?

Are there other examples of post-war gift-giving?

Historians often caution against making broad, sweeping statements about disparate times and places, and de-emphasise individuals and events in favour of broader social forces in driving historical change. But I often see legal or political scholars breaking these rules, and using individual events to illustrate their own pet theories, or assigning huge swathes of our modern systems to things such as the Magna Carta or the Treaty of Westphalia. How often do historians interact with the other spires in the ivory castle? Is this even a problem, or can it be accepted as just a difference in methodology?

I noticed names displayed on the walls of the Pantheon in Paris. These names include those of writers and soldiers, who died (I believe) during different wars and revolutions, so at different times.

These names are displayed under different categories. So far, I've noticed :

- "Mort au champs d'honneur" : dead on the field of honor

- "Mort sous les drapeaux" : dead under the flags

- "Mort pour la France" : dead for France

I was wondering what these different categories mean. The last one, "dead for France" reminds me of WWI monuments, so maybe these are related to different times ? I'm unsure when these names were engraved on the walls of this building.

Does anyone know something about this ?

Thanks

Airships were only used as bombers, why couldn't soldiers have machine guns mounted on it and have the airships armoured so no bullets could pierce it?

I have heared more than once that the image is accurate in some times and some cases, especially France. But much less accurate on other places.

Theres a Trend in my country which someone said That history is like Gossip i Like to ask People here if they think this is true or it is false

The way Armenia and Azerbaijan borders are organized seems untenable and almost like a temporary arrangement until something better can be arranged, which obviously has not happened. It almost feels like a smaller, closer version of the India/Pakistan partition, with a substantial exclave that was never going to last. Obviously the situation is different, with massive distances and populations involved, but neither of the situations feels/felt tenable.

Why did this situation come about? Were population transfers between Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhchivan impossible? If so why? What were the sticking points?

I've originally asked another more broad version of this question in a Jewish sub and was recommended to ask this here. So I've rephrased the question to be more specific (as much as I can) and can give some context too, if it helps:

Some context and clarity - If the mods need me to be even more specific I can try to be, but I am not asking about a specific year or a specific area of the middle east, because there is no year, specific country or event in that timeframe that is of particular relevance to my question, and I hope this is still narrowed down enough to allow for insightful replies.

Why am I asking this? I've dug back through some records and even some old cookbooks or herbal medicine references I could find, and it seemed that in many cultures (not Jewish) around the world, animal fats like lard and tallow were staples, in cooking and many other uses (like candles, medicinal salves, and beyond). It makes sense to me, as pressing seeds or nuts into oil using special stone tools must have been quite more involved and therefore likely less efficient and more expensive than it is today.

However, animal fats were more accessible to all, required no special tools to curate and preserved quite well if prepared properly.

Two of the most commonly used types of animal fats were tallow (made of suet, kidney fat) and lard (pig fat) and both are not kosher in Jewish law.

So this led me to wonder - what did Jews in the middle east (aka Mizrahi/sephardic Jews) commonly use, especially in terms of animal fats, if any?

Thanks!

Jefferson signed a bill in 1808 to end the slave trade, but he didn´t free his own slaves to go along with it.

I can see people wanting to keep slavery as their own lifestyle and financial support to their economic system but why ban the trade if you don´t ban slavery?

I was reading Anne of Green Gables and I came across a paragraph talking about French Boy to be a part time helper to the family. I looked it up online and read that the French fled religious persecution and ended up in Canada, but the French were also religious. So who were they?

———— A follow up question, Did Canada has a presence of Arab people in Canada of 1908, as there is also a mention of a poor Arab boy for a helper but the character disapproves saying he will be too much trouble?

Hi everyone, I've recently read the Wedgwood book and it was really good. I then saw the book by Peter Wilson recommended on several sites online, but after giving it a shot, I realized that it's too long and way beyond the scope of what I'm looking for. So are there any good texts that summarize the conflict and are accessible for the general reader? I'm well aware that the HRE and this war in particular are extremely complex subject, but there must be something more beginner-friendly. And if such books are not available, are there any YouTube series or podcasts that go over the conflict? Thank you very much.