I know that in medieval England, there were gongers (not sure if Im spelling that right) and gong farmers who would dump human waste into rivers, however I'd like to know how early Scandinavians dealt with this problem if it was similar or different to how the Anglo Saxons dealt with it. If they did have people who collected the waste, what were they called? How much, if anything, were they paid?

I‘m writing a fantasy setting similar to medieval europe in the 16th century. My question is how often people got fatal diseases and how often plagues struck. Was this worse in densely populated areas like cities? Did nobles and royalty avoid sickness due to little contact? What were some precautions to avoid disease?

I'm curious about the historical origin of this trope and where it comes from. I know it has to have evolved from somewhere in history.

I know different cultures have different colors for their beliefs in alignment. For example; the Japanese believe that darkness and evil is often associated with the color purple, but in Western society historically purple was often considered royalty.

TLDR: I want to know why historically the color blue and red are often associated with the colors blue and red.

Hey guys, I’m watching the new Netflix series “Rise of Empires: Ottoman” about the conquest of Constantinople, and in it, there’s mention of this ray of light that shone on the dome of the Hagia Sophia, which caused panic in the city (people thought it was the end of the world) and in the Ottoman ranks. I googled around about it and couldn’t find a single mention of it online. Up until now I’ve been pretty convinced of all the facts presented in the show but now I’m dubious.

It’s a dramatized documentary with historical commentary, so I think it should be academically backed but I’m not so sure. So here are my questions:

1.) Were there actually reports of some divine light coming off the Hagia Sophia?

2.) if so, what possible explanations are there for it?

3.) were the other astrological events (a blood moon+eclipse the night before the battle) actually verifiably recorded?

4.) if you’ve seen it, what else did this show get wrong?

Thanks in advance everyone, I’m really interested to figure this out

As I read about the French Revolution, I am sort of surprised at how well the Paris government(s) held onto power despite how radical their agenda became. Given how religious and rural most of France was, how was a narrow crust of primarily Paris-based radicals able to drag the entire country along with them? Even taking into account the Vendee War and other uprisings, the resistance to the 180-degree flipping of the entire French social structure seems to have gone relatively unchallenged.

Hello, I am interested in some readable interesting introductory Chinese history books and specific history books on the three kingdoms period.

Thanks in advance

Edit for clarification. What I mean is a general survey of Chinese history from ancient China to the beginning of modernity.

I was wondering if there's a solid explanation as to why it seems civilizations like ancient Greece and Ancient Rome in BC seemed far more advanced and at peace than say, the "medieval era" in the middle ages that lasted from the 5th to the 15th century.

​

What happened? I mean, things don't appear to be that much more developed but actually dull and maybe even more primitive than before.

The Plauge is burned into Western history for it's extreme impact on European populations. Interestingly it originated in China. What impact did it have on China at the time?

What do we need, to compare two historic events?

If we look at the works on the Thirty Years War for example, the way up to it, there is a specific event (the beginning of the Jülich-Cleve succession crisis and it's 'wars' in 1609 and 1614) that is sometimes viewed as of great importance to the beginning of the Thirty Years War and as an event that foreshadowed the beginning of the said war in the Bohemian Uprising. There is on the other hand works denying this connection (I can cite German and English sources for these claims, but I do not think they are necessary for my question, since it is less about a specific event and more about methodology; but if they are needed for an answer I will add them). The gist of the incomparability appears to lie in the different interpretations of the Thirty Years war, so the problem isn't the succession crisis, but the premises regarding the interpretation of the thing it is compared to.

While there is enough discussion here already, on if these things are comparable, and how that should be done, there are more than enough examples where I would intuitively say 'no reasonable comparison can be made here' - examples would be comparing the Ancient Roman Empire to the British Empire or saying 'this 20th century person is acting just like this 16th century person'.

So it all boils down to my beginning question: what do we need, call it a list of methodological steps, to compare two historic things?

There are a few newspaper articles referencing early female police officers and detectives from the 1860s onwards. However, I’ve only been able to find limited information on Maud West, Isabella Goodwin, Frances Benzecky and Kate Warne which are all from the US. There is also references to ‘knitting spies’ in the U.K.

Can anyone point me towards any more accounts? I’m particular interested in the U.K.

What I mean by this is the naming convention that pre-dates the Napoleonic Wars( I think) that result in regiments like "Oxford and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry", "South Wales Borderers" , and so on and so on. I imagine a part of this was the old British tradition of army expansion and contraction and budget restraints between wars. But it just seems a bad net result on the whole. People less aware of local regiments, potentially fewer joining and a break down of tradition, and a loss of regimental esprit de corps that exists with older formations.

I have frequently wondered why the varied peoples that make up what we now call Europe all abandoned their tribal Gods and took up what is ultimately a Jewish offshoot, from the Middle East. I know that ever since Rome Christianized it was being pushed outwards by great powers, but was that really all there was to it?

The seemingly vast majority of paintings (and sculptures) from the Renaissance through the early 1900s which portray women in the nude always seem to have "perfect" breasts. These are probably B to C cup breasts which are very symmetrical, feature small pink nipples with little areolas, and they never sag or show any stretch marks or veins.

I'm sure some of them are artistic interpretations, but many are capturing real life. Are they simply painting very young women (including those whom it would be illegal to portray today), were most women incredibly in shape and naturally tended to have smaller breasts, or was there a trend as with today where slimmer and more picturesque women were valued?

I'm aware of other cultures that valued large women and we can talk about whether this is most, many, or simply some artwork.

After the First Crusade, some crusaders returned home and told others that Jerusalem needed men, so with the Church’s blessings a “Second Crusade” went to help clear a land route to the Crusader States. They failed in securing the land route and resulted in the deaths of many people. Why are these Crusades not considered the Second Crusade? I have only just learned about them from the great History of the Crusades podcast.

Before anyone gives me any sass, no I don't actually believe in dragons. I'm just wondering if there's any indication these are exaggerated versions of real events?

We all know how the pagans and the christians, muslims saw each other. What did the people who were Christian but had great pagan kings, lords warriors or even ancestors were seeing them ? Did they curse them ? Did they praise them ? Since they did not share the same beliefs but were of the same heritage