I remember through my years in public school I was taught a narrative to the effect of “the church held back science and religion and science are fundamentally opposed”, however, being raised catholic i was taught something completely different as a child in some weekend classes organized by the church - that the church was the main promoter of knowledge in the Middle Ages and that without monks painstakingly copying texts large amounts of knowledge would have been lost.

In public school I was also taught that the Galileo affair was a straightforward case of the church trying to quash science, but in my weekend classes I was taught that it was more of a personal feud and that at the end of the day Galileo was pushing a model that was less accurate than one of the competing models. I’m aware that what I was taught in those weekend classes was explicitly church focused education and will obviously try to paint the church in a better light, but our teacher had some sort of degree in history so I assumed it was legit, along with the fact that he taught us some ways the church was bad in the past.

How did the narrative that the church was “anti science” gain traction and what were the circumstances behind it? And can someone give a breakdown of the Galileo affair?

There’s always a kind of implicit assumption that WW2 was this ideological war where the Allies were essentially fighting fascism.

However, there’s various quotes from Churchill in the 20s and 30s where he talks about how fascism has “done a great service to the world” and how Hitler is a great guy who is beloved by his people.

In addition, it’s well known that the UK had a history, if not a policy, of intervening on the continent in order to stem expansionism by various continental powers (Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars, World War 1 etc...)

So, was Churchill fighting an ideological battle against the fascism that he had, up until that point, been praising, or was he fighting a military battle in order to stem German expansionism as was standard British policy?

Thanks!

Hi,

​

How where murders investigated and resolved during the middle ages (around the 9th century).

Did they have the equivalent of the detectives and investigators we have today and if not who was in charge of solving crimes?

What tools and methods where they using? Did they put any efforts in solving crimes if the victim was just a random peasant?

​

I understand it was probably a lot easier to get away with murder back then but I am curious about the investigation process they used.

​

Thanks.

Hi all. I am researching my family tree and I have a question for you. My grandmother is from Co. Tyrone, Northern Ireland, and her maiden name is Montague. As I've gone back through the tree I noticed that our ancestors used to be Teagues, not that long ago either.

Does anyone know why this name change occurred? My Grandma has no idea and all of the other family members I've asked don't know either.

I also find it really hard to find much information about her side of the family, could this be why? I know not everyone in Ireland was registered and documented.

Thank you all in advance. Any information is greatly appreciated!

Adjusting for inflation, around how much would a Bach booklet cost me back in the 1700's? On the side note, how much did musical instruments (violin, harpischord, clarinet) cost back then? Any clue is appreciated :)

So i've tried to do as much of my own research as possible but i found nothing concrete.

We all know Italy wanted to annex Dalmatia which meant having to dismantle Yugoslavia, so Italy did have a very anti-Croat perspective barring that they wanted to annex and Italicize Dalmatia and Istria, which also meant a very anti-Slovene ideology (They had concentration camps for Croats and Slovenes as far as i know)

But what did Mussolini and in turn the wider Italian Fascist party think of Croats outside of Dalmatia? Croats in Slavonia and Bosnia, places that i assume Italy wanted in their sphere, did they consider them a people worth allying to or a menace to be eradicated?

Continuing on to the second part of the question, much like Dalmatia Italy wanted to annex Albania and some surrounding regions. Were the Italian Fascists anti-Serb and sought to cleanse Albania, who's borders would be expanded OTL of Serbs? Or did Italians see Serbs in a friendly view thanks to allyship in WW1. And did Italians defend Serbs from Ustashe and Albanians during WW2? I heard that sometimes Italians stepped in because they were extremely brutal against the Serbs.

And for the final part, Did Italy have any aspirations to puppet Serbia or put it in their sphere of influence? Did Italy have any post-war plans for Serbia or was Serbia to become a German client-state.

The American Revolution, as its story is told today, is presented as an impossibly ambitious David vs. Goliath fight that should never have worked. Using Hamilton as a contemporary example: "We are outgunned, outmanned, outnumbered, outplanned."

How much of this is mythmaking? So many of the Founding Fathers were men of means with a lot to lose, and it seems pretty clear from their writings that most of them were great minds too. So, given that they weren't stupid, it's a little hard to swallow that they would choose to risk their literal lives in favour of a hopeless cause?

So, was the cause less hopeless? Was there actually good strategic reason to believe that the Continental Army could defeat the British? know that Britain was also waging war against France and Spain, but the popular tale of the Revolutionary War holds that even a tiny fraction of British forces should be quite capable of stamping out the rebellion?

Or were the stakes less high for the people at the top? Certainly, the recruits were putting their literal lives on the line, but so has it ever been. Would Washington have been likely to face a firing squad or gallows if he had been forced to surrender? Would his fate have been different if he had surrendered in say 1777 vs 1782?

What about the Founding Fathers like Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison who were strong political proponents of Independence, but never actually took up arms against the British? How would a victorious Britain have been likely to treat them?

Or, is the modern myth relatively accurate and all these smart and wealthy men had sufficient ideological conviction that they were willing to gamble their very lives on a lost cause?

I know about their beliefs of hospitality, like treating guests well since they could be gods in disguise. But how far did that extend? Did they believe that demigods walked among them like Jason and Perseus? Did greek women believe that getting knocked up be Zeus was a real possibility? Or did they believe that all their myths happened in the distant past?

This sub gets a lot of people asking who the archetype of evil was before Hitler. But what about something more positive? Who was the archetype of the genius in popular discourse before Einstein? Was it still a scientist, or was it someone famous for a different type of brilliance?

I got kind of curious about this after learning that Enver Pasha ended up in the USSR after World War One ended. How did the Bolsheviks feel about the Ottoman Empire, the three pashas, the Armenian genocide, and Ataturk?

We all are aware the struggles of Jamestown and Plymouth in the early days and how reliant they were on aid from England but I'm curious when the colonies grew enough food to feed itself, when they could forge enough tools for their needs

And probably the hardest one to separate is when did they have a self replacing population. I understand if that one is unanswerable since there was such massive and constant immigration from Europe.

Essentially what I'm looking for is more than just a ship manifest. I imagine the European vessels that may be traveling from Latin America to Europe would be sailing under the Spanish or Portuguese flag, but if a historian had knowledge of any other such vessel I'd certainly appreciate it.

If this is a question that could be better answered elsewhere, or if this question is too broad and I need to narrow it down, I'd greatly appreciate such feedback.

I want to include:

• Cargo (including colonial exports)
  • Common types of cargo; or
  • A list of cargo commonly transported from any country/colony.
  • Whether cargo is typically homogeneous (only silver/sugarcane/tomatoes etc.) or varied (and if so, what were common makeups, if that's possible to describe)
• Foodstuffs and the containers they were held in
• Water supplies and the containers they were held in
• Alcohol that could have been brought onto the vessel, or brewed on the vessel
• Personal affects that would be permitted to be brought aboard the vessel
• Tools that are used on the vessel and what their purposes might be (hammers, chisels, nails, hooks, paddles etc.)
• Any other objects on the vessel

I want to exclude:

• Crew, passengers and other persons (and the positions held)
• Physical aspects or attributes of the vessel, such as 'mast', 'sail' and 'stern' (but still include 'spare wood for repairs' and 'a spare sail' if these were things actually carried on the vessel)

If there are any resources available online that you can point me to, I'd appreciate that too.

Greece was just like the UK - a relatively small great power that declined over time yet influenced future powers and civilizations around the world. Greek and British cultures have spread around the world due to their past endeavors.

Just like how the British influenced the United States and eventually ceded its role as a hegemonic power. Is this a correct comparison or am I missing something ?