I realise it was a more brutal era, and that it didn't have psychology, but the human brain hasn't changed any since then. Do any writings describe what we would recognise as war-related PTSD? Was it just considered a sign of unmanliness, or did people recognise that violence isn't healthy for the mind?

Hello everyone. It's the Scots that are well known for wearing kilts. I heard it somewhere, whether it was from a reenactment group I was in previously, or somewhere else, that the Irish also wore kilts? Is this historically accurate? The only answers I have been able to find are mixed. Thank you.

I was reading about "western rite orthodoxy", and every example I can find joined the orthodox church long after the schism, or were founded by members of the eastern orthodox church, independently of the catholic church.

However, it is hard to believe that no western churches were persuaded by the orthodox side of the split. Do these exist? If so, what's their history and status today?

By 1391 the Ottomans had the run of Thrace and, increasingly, the Balkans. They helped Manuel II depose John V and were able to order both Manuel and John VII to take part in the siege of Philadelphia. By the sounds of it the Empire had no army, no money, and no allies at that point. So why didn't Murad, Bayezit, or their successors take Constantinople until 1453?

A lot of media in Hollywood tries to make it seem like there were white people who cared about the Natives. How true is this? I'd like to believe the number isn't zero, but at the same time, Hollywood does try to make history conform to modern ideologies.

I can't seem to find any details about people's attitudes at the time, only battles and massacres. Was it generally accepted at the time that the Natives were savages to be dealt with? Or did some people try to help them?

The Chinese completely lost naval and superiority, had barely any armor, almost none existent anti armor weapons, were marching on foot why the UN forces were mechanized and their supply lines in a terrible state at one point barely able being able to feed them.

I always found Hitler's "Heil Hitler" salute to be vaguely effeminate (elbow bent, palm facing upwards, fingers pointing back to his face—like he's carrying a platter in front of him), but then it occurred to me that, while everyone else had their arms outstretched towards him, he may have literally been saluting himself.

Haiti, Jamaica, and many of the other Caribbean islands were apparently ludicrously profitable in their slave plantation heydays, but none of these countries are extremely rich now. Was this because it was only profitable with respect to money being extracted for a tiny group of peolle that made it seem that way, and in terms of providing wealth to a nation of people it would be?

Was it blockade (in the case of Haiti) or lack of continued capital investment?

We’re their case crops grown better elsewhere?

Or was it that they were only profitable under the horrifyingly brutal system of slavery that churned through humans like they were some raw material and under a not crime-against-humanity regime they weren’t?

What changed? I know the Caribbean is diverse but weren’t most of them similar plantation cash-crop economies growing relatively similar crops, so there have to be some through lines?

What armor or weapons did non samurai use?

I try to look but only find samurai stuff and I'm looking for everything but samurais

I've been interested in understanding what defines and differentiates Fascism from other forms of authoritarianism & dictatorships. I frequently see the Ustasha mentioned as an example of a Fascist regime but unlike Fascist Italy where it seems possible to tease out a definite attempt at an ideology, I am having a harder time doing so for this movement and the Independent State of Croatia. From what I have gathered their main focus was on creating an independent State and overtly focused on "cleansing" any Serbian influence. I can definitely see their conceptions of race being inspired by Nazi Germany and I can see how the support they got from Mussolini makes the association with Fascism definite. But beyond this I'm not sure what makes them qualify as Fascist. Seems their government was disorganized with no prevailing organizational method. Most of the energy was spent on the genocide and trying to insure they remained independent with little else remaining consistent. What would make them Fascists rather than say, a particularly brutal ultranationalist movement with no real guiding ideology?

So to begin with, I don’t mean this as some sort of snarky criticism of this sub. This place is great and one of my all time favorite places on the internet.

What I have noticed over time is that whenever some popular historical content creator is brought up, whether it’s a writer or a podcaster or whatever, they tend to be roundly criticized. The criticisms often seem warranted, but I’ve noticed that the critiques often come from so many angles, that it’s hard to imagine how these figures could create their content to answer all these critiques without essentially producing an academic overview of the field, giving time to all the methodological and interpretational implied.

I feel like such a thing would essentially cease to be popular history, so I’m left wondering, is the problem really just the field of popular history? Is there a creator for who has widespread respect from historians, or is it just that the field of popular history is inherently problematic, and so it’s consumers should be aware of the particular ways in which their favorite writers/podcasters are problematic?

Hello, I was wondering if Welsh medieval kings commonly wrote their own speeches, or if someone else wrote them? I don’t really care too much what time period the answer is from bc I just need it for a King Arthur fantasy thing and I’m at those odd times where I actually need to be correct. If y’all would prefer a set time, around the 5th century would be most accurate.

The amount of emperors killed by the Praetorian Guard is so staggering that it is almost comical.

So, I’m wondering, why did no previous emperor take action against them? I mean, even in the early days of the empire with individuals like Sejanus, how on Earth was this not addressed sooner?

We’re the emperors simply too afraid to take action? How and why did they even let the Praetorian Guard become so powerful in the first place? I am genuinely curious.

I've read something about the word for sweet potato being the same in Aymara and some Polynesian language... I don't know, if that's the only evidence it seems like a stretch. Is there any solid evidence backing up this claim?

When piracy in antiquity is discussed, it almost always focuses on the Mediterranean. But there were rich trade routes across the Indian Ocean, with India being a major trading hub, rich in resources of its own while also connecting trade between Rome and China. So it seems natural that with so much wealth being shipped back and forth, piracy would have been a significant problem in the Indian Ocean. Yet I've never really seen Indian Ocean piracy mentioned unless it's in connection to the colonial era or later, as if it suddenly appeared from nowhere in the 16th century. But what about in antiquity? How much of a problem were pirates in the Indian Ocean during the Roman era, and how much did it affect the Rome-India-China trade? Did the Romans have a naval fleet in the Red Sea to combat piracy? What about other countries around the ocean, in India, East Africa, Persia, Arabia, Southeast Asia? Did they have navies strong enough to keep piracy under control?