Let me explain, I figure back in the day there was much more walking and manual labor. More constricting clothes and less hygiene.

My thought process is that a person would try not getting sweaty and gross with how little they bathed. Along with that, all the exercise citizens were getting anyway from going to the market or doing all of their chores makes me think no one would bother going for a run for fun.

Was running more out of necessity? Are my assumptions on hygiene or personal hobbies of the past incorrect? When did the first track games and Olympic Games start? What was the earliest recorded history of running for leisure?

Is this a true reflection of how casually and frequently people proposed, or is it more of a literary device?

I was in a semi drunk argument with friends. My inebriated brain led me to conclude that today, a smaller percentage of people know how to swim than 2000 years ago. My theory was more people lived near the water, more people were required to go near water for survival, and swimming may have been a right of passage for many cultures. This brought up some hot debate as obviously pools and available lessons are offered and many children do take lessons. Anyone care to weigh in?

What book(s) would you recommend on the indepth history & development of Washington, DC? Specifically, I'm interested in the original plan & founding of the capitol; what finally led to retrocession to Virginia; how DC lagged behind other major Western capitol cities in population, development, grandiose monumental architecture; antebellum & postbellum African American contributions & influence in culture, politics, economics; the expansion of federal power under FDR to the post 9/11 era; talks of statehood. Any suggestions & help I very much appreciate.

The answer to this question is highly politicized. I'd appreciate the perspective of a history buff rather than someone with an agenda.

I tried asking this in r/askscience with no luck, I figured I would try here:

Religious folk seem to hang onto this "missing link" in human evolution as evidence that their deity exists. is there actually a missing link? has it been found? or is this statement wrong all together

Did Hittite kings have multiple wives or take concubines? How were royal Hittite marriages brokered? Was there a formal harem or was it more of a mistress type of situation?

And as a follow up around when did a white portrayal of Jesus become the norm? was it during Medieval times or was it earlier or later than that?

I've just finished Blood Meridian and wondered what non fiction historical books would pair well with its themes and real historical elements?

Not only are Halewijn and Halloween essentially homophones, but this story bears a strong similarity to the Scots-English ballad "Tam Lin," of which the holiday Halloween bears a central presence. Do both of these words and stories have a shared source?

While the song Halewijn has several analogues in the English ballad tradition, I don't believe any mention a specific holiday.

Popular knowledge seems to focus on U-Boats Vs Convoys in the Atlantic, and battleships & Carriers in the Pacific.

How accurate is this? I rarely hear anything about Japanese submarine warfare. Was this an important part of the Imperial navy? Did it have an impact on strategy or battle?

There has been some extensive research done in this sub regarding the popular platform switches done in the US. I am struggling with using any of this research as a reliable argument since I am unable to find the source of said information. I understand that it may be difficult to find sources for all of the information, but I'm not a historian and I wouldn't know where to begin trying to dispel the bogus and flagrant narrative that some people are pushing when they claim the platform switch is a myth. I've read a lot of the information available here and have come to the co conclusion that the parties are very much the same sans social issues.

Am I doing somethingwrong or are there really not sources to back up arguments?

This is kind of a hard one to explain. But is there a general consensus on where a historical fades from historical to a sort of "relevent" figure?

An example of this would be the way we might talk about a leader in history. For example I find Atilla the Hun really interesting and in casual conversation I might say I really like him or that he's one of my favourite historical figures. In reality he was one of the most ruthless and evil men probably ever. In contrast to this I could also find the rise of nazi Germany interesting but would never in my right mind say talk about him as a "favourite" of mine.

This kind of carries across into the current debates on statues of historical figures. There are plenty of more ancient figures that no one would ever take issue with having a statue in public, but there is debate on some slightly newer statues that were historically significant but had pretty strong ties to the slave trade or similar negative things.

Edit: I want to add retrospectively that the second question might might not be answerable from a historical perspective for the current climate surrounding the ethics of statues so if there is no interesting history of ethical opinion on statues over 20 years ago please ignore it.

A lot of historians credit one of the major Reasons for The Fall of the Bronze Age as the "sea people" being one of its main causes. Do we have any clue about who these people were and where did they come from?

I'm Canadian so we don't really hear about the first English colonies which were in the US. I'm just surprised/confused about how a few boatloads of people could take hold on a continent without being ... forcibly evicted by far more natives. I'm aware/guessing that disease played a role as well as the fact that tribes in the US weren't as cohesive as a country. Can anyone fill me in on the first 50 or so years of English settlement in the US?

In his work "The Religious Context of the English Civil War," John Morrill has called the English Civil War "the last of the Wars of Religion. (1984)" How accurate is this statement given the subsequent few centuries? Is it at least accurate within the context of Europe?

Christoper Caldwell's Age of Entitlement describes a NYT paper from 1987 that was 1,612 pages and weighed no less than 12 pounds. Why was there a 1,612 page newspaper? How did this lead to the ~50 page papers of today?