It seems like it would be a perfect propaganda opportunity, a demonstration that the moral claims of the 'free world' were largely hollow. Did official state media in the USSR or other countries pay a lot of attention to the affair? How did they frame its significance?

If so, where did they get it?
If not, what did they use instead?

"You heard it said 'don't committ adultery.' But now i tell you whoever looks at a women with a lust has committed adultery with her in his heart."

I wanna ask here how is the historical interpretations of this passage.

Because i am confusing whether it is meant to say, if you look at a girl to be horny than you committ adultery.

However on second thought, maybe the statement said, if you look at a girl WITH THE INTENTION/DESIRE OF COMMITTING ADULTERY (STEALING THAT WHICH ISNT YOURS) then it is adultery.

I ask how did the early church fathers, different denomination, different priests/church fathers/religious leaders interpret this passage throughout world history.

Are there books/essays discussing this. How does other religion like judaism etc. view it.

And what would Jesus have meant exactly here.

Thanks.

Also i am asking it here so that i dont get an answer that is biased to any particular religion/ideology/opinion.

Early Humans were running around barefoot, then at some point we had some kinds of basic shoes (sandal things?), and then later shoes/boots that covered the foot.

Somewhere in here, someone had the bright idea to sheathe their foot in something (modern day cloth/socks) in order to prevent all that rubbing/chafing of ankles and the wide bits just behind the toes, and we're forever thankful (wear shoes for a day without socks and find out real quick...)

...but where did this practice start? Did it start with cloth or did people use things like mud or the like? And how did it manage to catch on, and then to spread all over the world so prevalently as it has today?

(Was just a random question I stumbled onto throwing on my shoes sans socks to run outside for something real quick, and I started wondering where the idea of socks DID come from and how it's so universal today in much of the world...)

With the understanding that this is a hugely broad topic, I'd love to learn about the specifics of any period and/or Dynasty's particularities as regards enthronement, but I'm most interested in the period from roughly 1100-1900. That's still hugely broad, I know--if it needs to be narrowed further, the situation for the Song, Liao, Jin, Yuan or Qing are what I'd be most interested in knowing about.

And although I don't think there were any similar rituals or plans for such things with the Taiping, maybe /u/enclavedmicrostate can prove me wrong and wow me!

So I recently graduated from University and wanted to keep up my research skills by answering questions on Ask Historians. I however no longer have access to my universities library database and I am unsure where to find material I can cite. I have tried google scholar but thats usually only good for finding titles and dose not typically have the full articles. I have tried my local library but I live in a small town and our library has limited resources. I also can’t afford to go and buy every book that might be useful. Suggestions?

I'm not sure if this question fits this subreddit but it is a question for historians!

I'm in my final year of my B.A. in History and will be applying for my M.A. soon. I need to submit a statement of my research interests as part of the application, but I can't pinpoint what exactly I would want to focus my research on. Almost every type of history that I've taken courses in interests me. I'm having difficulty singling out a certain region or period that interests me the most. I know for an M.A. it doesn't need to be too specialized, but I still need to come up with a rough idea of what I find most interesting. I haven't decided yet if I plan to do my Ph.D., but if I do then I will need to specialize even further. How did you determine your specializations?

It being in the middle of two very influential cultures makes it seem incredibly interesting to me. I would appreciate any video or book recommendations. Thanks y'all!

Ships of the era were almost entirely made of wood. Was fire recognized for its destructive potential in battle and was any weapon system developed for its delivery?

We know about Greek fire, an early form of napalm, used by the Eastern Romans and fire ships used during the Battle of Red Cliffs, for example. Ships’ armament was mainly smoothbore cannon, but would large-scale weaponization of fire have been effective in burning down enemy ships?

Hey guys.

I’m a psych field worker who’s trying to gain more understanding of past history, and our current events taking place today. I have heard a lot of people bringing up a conversation of Holocaust vs Slavery when it comes to Americans wanting to remove all confederate statues. Having the argument of “if we remove it , it will happen again history history history”. I’ve tried to do some research to see what Germany is like post holocaust? What do they do to keep the holocaust alive but at the same time respect the victims? From what I have read, I had thought to believe that Germany is still relatively shameful? I’m just not aware of how they memorialize that time in history.

-keep in mind- Not comparing the two in any way. Not stating is more important than the other. Just trying to do what I do..aka critically think.. with the help of people who can give me tools to do so in an ethical way.

Cheers

Civilizations like Spain, Austria, Italy, Turkey, Iran, and Sweden had their brief time in the sun, but the Russian civilization has been a consistent mover of the world since the 1500s. Why is that so? What gave them such an advantage over their neighbors that Russian interest were always considered by their rival powers?

The full quote goes:

In the closing years of the Heian period in Japan, the noble class was paying the price for generations of introspection and for their failure to properly attend to administration. For years, they had focused on courtly intrigues and had cultivated pleasures at the expense of their government duties. The ministers of the Imperial Court had become so incompetent that by the year a.d. 1000, they no longer had the knowledge needed to issue new currency. The existing supply of coins gradually shrank, and much of Japan turned to barter economics.

At the same time, the security and prosperity of the Empire was suffering. Bandits wandered the countryside, making travel between settlements hazardous. Leaving home at night was considered a foolhardy act. Crops failed, or were simply not distributed to the hungry cities. Waves of famine and disease struck the Empire.

The game in question is the tabletop RPG Usagi Yojimbo, from 2006. On a semi-related note, I quite like this game and intend to play it, but if anyone could point me towards a better one for setting, that would be great! I'm not really after anything too indepth, it's more about the general feel and basic setting of the time period than serious studies.

Thanks anyway!

I know that racism is pretty stupid and doesn't really have any reason other than prejudice, hatred, etc. But the reason why I ask this question is because I at least can understand why they would consider different races or outside Western culture to be inferior. Even if it's indefensible it was a feeling that most European countries shared.

But on what basis did they consider Slavic people, and Russians specifically, to be inferior? They are part of the same race, they share the same European identity and have historically engaged in Western culture. Russia specifically has contributed greatly to the Western canon in literature, Classical music, etc.

I know racism is irrational but I can't see the basis on why they considered them inferior. At least in other cases you can pinpoint different race or totally different culture, etc as a reason why europeans in general considered other people to be inferior.

Or was this just a Nazi rethoric and lame excuse to justify taking their land but they didn't really believe it? I think this could be possible.

I know that people did know the world was round before Columbus "Discovered" the new world but I have always wondered how many people knew that did the average french peasant know the earth was round, or did the people in places like east aisa, africa or the Americas know it? Also if they didn't know at that time when did it became common knowledge?

In Viking Age fiction Catholic priests and Norse seers often accompany armies into battles to fight or at least demoralise the enemy. Is this accurate and did a similar thing happen in other religions? I heard about warrior monks in East Asia (playing Ghost of Tsushima) but don't know how accurate that is.

I always found this fascinating. I believe Greek Mythology including the Trojan war was always seen as fantasy/fiction in our modern era. Then as discussed in the 1870s they actually discovered Troy in Anatolia. I notice that a lot of American scholars (Clovis first for example) are very reluctant to admit they were wrong about the populating of the Americas as new evidence comes out.

Was the reaction similar to when they discovered Troy? Did people flat out deny it? Did people accept it with open arms? Did people freak out that it was actually real?

I read recently, from a not-so-great source, that in the first hours of Germanys invasion of the Soviet Union that Stalin was hesitant to mount a full scale defense. The source goes on to state that Stalin was so confident that Hitler would uphold his end of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that he was convinced that the attacking forces were German generals gone rogue, thus causing Stalin to hesitate in case the invasion had been initiated with-out Hitlers consent. Is this true? Was Stalin really so sure of Hitler that he waited to fully push back? If this has already been answered I apologize and would appreciate a link to said answer.

I have seen that there are many types of crowns for royalty. My 2 questions are:

1: Are the different types of King crowns "purely esthetical" or can different types of a king crown symbolize different things?

2: If there where kings physically participating in battle or war, could/did they have different crowns for going into battle than they wore at official events and so on, if they wore their crown? (If they had more than one crown of course"

​

I have been trying to do research on this but cant seem to find any good answers or sources for this.