I'm watching a netflix show Myth's and Monsters, episode 2.

The story of aticus going into the wild and coming across a goddess and her nymphs bathing.

Assuming that gods never existed, how and why did these stories start coming up?

I can understand stories that are meant to explain something, like new land creation, or the "controlling of seasons", giving up a divine like experience that no human could possibly do. Or by governments looking to control the population.

But a story about a random person meeting a goddess and running away doesn't seem like theirs any message or use attached to it, other then just some story that was made up. (The show says Aticus encroached on a god and needed to be punished for that action, turned into a stag and then devoured by his dogs.)

So why did all these crazy mythlogical stories happen? Why are they so fanciful?

Thanks :)

It seems like more developed countries like Japan and those of Western Europe have declining populations, while less developed third-world countries like those in sub-Saharan Africa have rapidly expanding populations. This seems counterintuitive. Why is this the case?

I got this info from Wikipedia so I don’t know how true it is, any additional info is greatly appreciated! I’d also love a book recommendation if you have one

Most of the cases I have come across in my own reading feature assassins that are mostly opportunistic (i.e. have access to the target) or fanatical (don’t care about the personal consequences). The most high-profile cases of assassination throughout history seem to be wildly at odds with the cold, calm, professional characterisation they are often shown to have. Caesar, Franz Ferdinand, Oda Nobunaga, JFK, even the killings by the Order of Assassins don’t fit the bill. The assassins in these cases were essentially 'fire and forget' or just the people who had access to the target.

To clarify, I’m asking about the history of the image and portrayal of assassins, and where that comes from, and how rooted that is in reality – rather than what assassins were actually like.

I know the Greeks, Turks, and Hittites are not native to Asia Minor, so who are the real natives? And do they still exist today?

When I ask this, I mean everything. Like- where did they take place?, what did people where in those times and places?, how did the laws work?, what firearms did they have?, I really mean everything. And I don't know if there even is just one thing about all of it. But if there is, that would be great

I’m currently debating a person that holds the position that Germanicus was largely a failure in his campaigns against the Cherusci and Chatti (among other tribes, would like to know all the tribes involved). He claims that the Germanic tribes basically won, that Germanicus did no real damage to Germanic coalitions, and that he didn’t really restore the “honor of Rome.”

Now I can understand the arguement that Roman casualties during these campaigns were high and therefore too costly to continue, but how bad were Roman losses compared to Germanic losses?

To my understanding Germanicus was recalled because Tiberius didn’t want to pay the cost of more military campaigns in Germania. It was just too expensive. Someone help me here...I thought Germanicus was basically the “Alexander the great” to romans?

In shows like Game of Thrones and Last Kingdom a messenger would express the importance of a letter by saying something like "I have a message with the seal of____". Unless it's just popular misconception, I believe kings and other important people did have seals, but how would the recipient know it's legit? Has there ever been incidents of forged seals on major messages that led to something big?

As the title says, how would rival nations know when to meet for a battle? Would an army just happen to run into another one or would they send "meet me here" letters?

I am an adult who works in a field that has NOTHING to do with history, living in a 3rd world county that gives no care at all for world history. I want to get over these facts.

In short; I want to learn history.

So here is my hare-brained idea; over the next three years, I want to learn about history; from a political, military and humanitarian point of view. Emphasis on the humanitarian.

So I wanted someone -anyone really- to help me by pointing out the highlight periods of our history, especially the modern history and all that leads to today's conflicts. And to give me some sort of how to start, what books to read first and about what. And if philosophy and art are of special interest to me, how to go about that.

In short -again- help me get some sort of curriculum to go through over a 3- 5 year period.

Thanks for putting up with me.

I mean, did a knight think "I should stretch before this fight so I'm more flexible and I don't hurt my muscles"?

Just wondered about it while I took a jog yesterday and thought it couldn't hurt to ask.

I posted this in history subreddit and it was recommend to crosspost here since there was a lot of idle specualtive answers.

Basically, the Spanish Monarchy went bankrupt at least 6 times to my knowledge from crusades against Islam and Protestants, trying to hold the american colonies, and the Spanish Netherlands Revolts by the Dutch. Through all this there was never a revolution.

What actually happened when the Spanish crown went bankrupt? Did the king just say oh well, im not paying all you guys, and there is nothing you can do about it? Was he forced to sell land/title? How did he resolive it without the people/bankers/debtors rising up?

In medieval times it was often due to the expense of gear/weapons and training, hence a knight could put down a few peaseents with pitchforks due to better gear and training. However, gunpowder had been around for a while by now, so the ability for a common man to kill a "knight" or noble was there.

France on the other hand went bankrupt due to the crown lavish expense and helping US fight the british in the colonies. Yet this started the age of revolution and his downfall.

I'm really looking more for answers on why Spain didn't revolt, as opposed to why France did, which is where everyone mostly focused on the other thread.

I know the answer to this may seem obvious: "because he beat Hitler!" However, what confuses me is that Churchill is seen as an almost legendary figure in the UK - he was voted number 1 in a poll of the 100 Greatest Britons, for example - but the US doesn't hold nearly the same reverence for Truman or FDR. As far as I'm aware, France also lacks this reverence for de Gaulle.

So, my question is, what made Churchill so exceptional, even above other wartime leaders, in the eyes of his people? And was this reputation something believed during the war and its immediate aftermath, or was it a reputation that was constructed in subsequent decades?

Really disturbing threads recently on reddit with ignorant and sarcastic comments. I'm just hoping to be able to refer people to a source of education during recent cultural events regarding brand labels and black stereotypes.

Many other countries either tried to adopt them like France or Britain (both decided, “well the war’s here no point in wasting money and time on a new gun when we can just make cheap bolt guns we know about instead, no need for unknown flaws that could happen that could set us behind.”) But the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did have and fielded a few semiautomatic rifles in their armies (the SVT-40 or SKS rifle, the Gewehr 43 and 41 respectively) why didn’t theirs take off like the M1 Garand did? What held them back exactly?

I’ve been listening to Robert Garland’s The Other Side Of History: Daily Life In The Ancient World lecture series. The professor states humanity in ancient times barely survived several events, the worst of which was a super volcano erupting in Sumatra. How close was humanity to being wiped out, and who survived to continue the species?