Or would they perhaps instead differentiate between, say, chanting a mysterious phrase in Latin in front of a big stone cross with words invoking Deus (good) and chanting a phrase in the vernacular in front of a tree with words invoking Wotan (bad)?
Or something else?

I heard it multiple times that the gold flowing in from the Spanish colonies in the Americas caused disastrous levels of inflation in Spain and the reason for this was that Philip II didn't understand the basic principles of inflation so he didn't try to limit the amount of gold coming to Spain. Is this really true? I know that it's thanks to modern education that inflation seems like such a simple concept to us and it wouldn't be understood by everyone in the late medieval period, but it seems strange that no one at the Spanish court foresaw this problem.

I can remember reading multiple times about medieval monarchs decreasing the amount of silver/gold in coinage which resulted in the currency loosing it's value. I was under the impression that this process, which is basically inflation, was understood at the time.

There's a game coming up from the Assasins's Creed series which is going to be protagonized by a "viking" and there was already another one protagonized by a pirate. I have a hard time imagining something similar with a conquistador as the hero and the Aztecs as the baddies. Why the difference in treatment for these historical figures?

With all the roman-jewish wars

I recall that in ancient Greece some gods were patrons of specific cities, and that these gods prominence reflected that of the city, but how these gods were created in the first place? Did an important person made a story up about an ancestor god to justify their power, like the whole Aeneas thing being the ancestor of Julius Caesar? We surely have first accounts of gods, do we know the specific process that brought them into "existence"?

Is it true that he took Germany from a poor country to a superpower? If so, how did he do it?

I've read in numerous places (not least the Wikipedia article) that by the late 4th and early 5th centuries, the Western Roman Empire's armies largely consisted of foreign mercenaries and Germanic barbarian levies. What I've never understood is how this could happen. How was it that Roman elites and Roman citizens got to the point where their entire armies were made of people of suspect loyalty to the empire? What cultural, economic, and political changes were required for this to happen? What happened to the famously organized Roman military organizational infrastructure? Did people somehow turn against military activity? I know Gibbons suggested that Christianity might have had something to do with this -- but given that the next two millenia of Christian history was full of plenty of formidably militaristic peoples, I'm dubious.

watching Midway and it occurred to me that it was likely an all out blitz but I wanted to be sure...

I hear people say "100 million is a fabrication" when someone brings up the death communism caused.why is this? Is is there any historical evidence to support this claim?

I’ve been told that in the months/years leading up to WWII, Mussolini sought help from the English in defense against Hitler’s war preparations. And that the English refused to help Fascist Italy defend itself against the Nazis. This inspired Mussolini to seek an alliance with Hitler himself. Is there any truth to this theory or is it more fascist apology. Are there any hints in Galeazzo Ciano’s diary as to whether this might have actually happened?

I’ve been in a number of science ethics discussions and one prevailing idea was that the atomic bombs were “shiny new toys” and there were people pushing to use them at the expense of any other alternatives. (Obviously less flippantly than that.) This, of course, doesn’t make scientists look very good. So that’s what seems to make the narrative of saving more lives by dropping the bombs instead of a land invasion seem more palatable. Were there any alternatives being pursued? If so, what were they?

Why and when did this practice of serving bread in a basket (as opposed to, say a plate) come about?

So I'm from England myself and my question really is, I guess, how far back in time would I have to go that I would struggle to converse with a fellow Englishman? And what were the notable milestones for the language changing significantly?

So I've been reading a little bit about the Cuban Revolution. Growing up in America you are told, basically every country is evil, except Canada, France, and Britain (but they used to be). So it's not really suprising their's A lot of misinformation about Cuba and its crimes. I was trying to find out how many of their "own" they killed, and was surprised to find very low estimates from Amnesty international of only around 400 of Batista's men, with obviously some estimates going to around 3,000. To me this seems like the basic actions of country that just overthrew a fascist regime, and it has always seemed disingenuous to count the revolutionary or defensive war deaths as part of a nations crime (like people do with the USSR and Germany).

I have never heard a single American see the hypocrisy in our own overthrow of Britain, and the countless deaths that occurred. So did we execute any remaining loyalists after the war, I understand many fled to Canada and England, but did we hold trials for anyone?

Did Plato ever draw this distinction in his own work? Thanks.