Concern over identity theft seems to have risen dramatically in the Information Age, but the very concepts of identity and privacy seem to have evolved as well. Did identity thieves exist before the late 20th century, or was there basically nothing identity-wise to even steal yet?

When looking at Norse culture we obviously have the image of those warriors who were slain honourably in battle being taken by the Valkyries to Valhalla or Folkvangr but what about those warriors who were recovered from the battlefield but still died of their injuries or from infections that developed later on? Did they also go to Valhalla or were they consigned to Hel's icy grip?

What about women who died in childbirth? I've always had the image in my mind of Norse women being treated a lot fairer than their contemporaries, similar to the Spartans, how accurate is that and does it transfer to women who died protecting their children, property, etc. or to women who died in childbirth (creating potential new warriors in the process)?

Essentially, what other criteria could allow someone into Valhalla or Folkvangr rather than being sent to Hel?

Greetings,

I'm not an economics major and I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but for the sake of writing a fictional story I want to learn the nature of renaissance banks. Specifically I want to know 1.) Why they came into prominence as they did, 2.) How they managed to influence the economy and generated income 3.) Who were most likely to become bankers, and their societal significance as a class (if bankers could indeed be called a class).

As a last minute inquiry I would like to learn how currency came to be. What little I read tells me the Roman denari(?) was a more convenient way to pay their soldiers salaries. What factors should I be looking for in creating a currency for my fictive civilization based on historical fact?

Looking forward to replies.

Addendum:

How does an economy move towards fiat currency as opposed to currency based on commodity?

Could someone recommend me some IRA documentaries / books? I'm trying to inform myself, not only because I am curious but I have realized that I know very little about this period. I am interested in finding books or documentaries that give importance to the most important figures and the most famous days but that also give a precise historical context.

I apologize for my English

Europe heavily involved and even went to war with French revolution but did not go to war with France for July revolution . Both revolution ended the monarchy and established republic government . What are the difference between these two revolution ?

For example I've read that after a battle, If possible, the army would bring the dead bodies of their soldiers back for burial near the town which they hailed from. How did they managed this? It's not like they had dog tags back then, and i don't think they check the dead one by one just in case that one of the survivors recognize their fallen friend. So how did they do it??

Thanks in advance folks

When I graduated from high school, our history classes basically went up to the 1960s. With regards to the time period after that, they either didn't cover it or glossed over it. Fifty years of history seems like an awful lot to just leave out, especially as it is the history that most connects to the present day.

Why do American history classes cut off several decades early? Was it always like this? Did history classes in the 1960s cut off at the 1920s?

I understand that the rise of far right (and left) extremism in europe in the mid 20th century is mainly responsible for the modern prejudice, but it seems to date much further back, at least to Shakespearian times (ie. Merchant of Venice). Being someone not super familiar with Judaism I've never really understood the stereotype, is it just that Jewish people traditionally worked as doctors or other well trained professions? Or is it more a case of demonization by Christians and other religious groups? Apologies if this has already been asked.

In a recent article on the history of race and liberal thought, The Economist wrote that while they had always opposed slavery, during the American civil war they made the bizarre argument that the south winning would likely result in Abolition sooner than if the north won. The article doesn't say anything more about this. What was the rationale for this belief? Did many people, including those in the US, believe this?

And how have they changed over the centuries

For instance, I know that anti communism and anti atheism were massive factors.

The narrative of racial discrimination in America has also changed over time and had to be increasingly narrow and specific and was harder to uphold, like in the 1950s, people were still lynching black people to see them as socially inferior by many, who openly said that racial mixing and marriage was evil and satanic, but by 1993, it had turned to a drug war.

So what was the story of this narrative in ZA? It seems to have run out of excuses so soon that the government turned to nuclear weapons in case they completely lost alliances.

Edit: As importantly, what narratives had to be overcome to defeat Apartheid?

I remember reading that mandates (like Mandatory Palestine and the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon) were de facto colonies. Is this true? And if so, what led to the change in name in the first place?

So I feel the consensus view is that the Russian invasion of Manchuria would spell the doom of Japan, and many important Japanese officials were considering surrender because of it. It’s easy to see in retrospect that this might have led to some kind of surrender in and of itself eventually without the use of nuclear bombs.

But did Truman know this at the time? Did he receive any peace overtures or hints that they might be on the verge of surrender? If he did, was it just the terms were insufficient? I tried looking around and couldn’t really find much.

More generally, I’d love to know more about the dying days of the Japanese Empire and the closed door political machinations leading up to their surrender and negotiations with the US. So any book suggestions would be welcome.

Seeing as they largely are not permitted to use modern technology, were they exempt from the draft during world war 2 or other US wars?

I remember in Hacksaw Ridge a conscientious objector did not have to pick up arms to fight.

In addition, did Wisconsin vs Yoder set any sort of precedent in this field?

I’ve heard this being said by some people recently (trying to compare him to Hitler) and I want to know is this historically accurate? Some say it definitely happened and some others have said its rubbish. What’s the truth and what’s the opinion of most academic historians? Thanks.

Hello everyone, recently it came to my knowledge that the genoans had established a few colonies in Crimea, modern day Russia. How could such a small state in Italy hold an enclave all the way in the black sea? How was the colony governed? How did they get there in the first place?

Thanks!