In the centuries of religious persecutions following the Protestant Reformation, how was one denomination identified from another. How were the Catholics looking for Protestants and vice versa? And then the various Protestants who persecuted each other.

So Germany was going through the Weiner Republic and because of that Hitler comes to power, but how did he turn the economy around in what seems like a year? I mean where is getting the funds to raise a whole army when the country is experiencing such extreme inflation?

"'Suddenly our eyes . . . became glued on a young man who was coming in through the door,' a fellow assemblyman described the first time he saw Theodore. 'His hair was parted in the center, and he had sideburns. He wore a single eyeglass, with a gold chain over his ear. He had on a cutaway coat with one button at the top, and the ends of its tails almost reached the tops of his shoes. He carried a gold-headed cane in one hand, a silk hat in the other, and he walked in the bent over fashion that was the style with the young men of the day. His trousers were as tight as a tailor could make them, and he had a bell shaped bottom to cover his shoes.'

Theodore Roosevelt By Michael L. Cooper, 2009.

I suppose early modern men had some memory of Neanderthals in their oral culture, did this memory, albeit heavily altered by centuries and millennia of oral tradition, survive long enough to be put into written words?

What is the reason for cannons transitioning like this. To my understanding the first cannons were smooth bore and were quite inaccurate and had limited range but when they started adding rifling to them the range and accuracy went up significantly. And then much later in history you see tanks transitioning back to smooth bore barrels. What is the reason for this? Aren’t rifled barrels more superior in every way?

While we talk about the middle East or Arab countries, people talk about Dictatorships, Monarchies, democratic regimes, but was there anything contrary which actually worked at helm?

Specifically, while I was reading Plato's Republic, I came across a direct comparison between dogs and wolves, which made me wonder: did the ancient Greeks understand the biological connection between wolves and dogs? Dogs were domesticated from wolves at least ~6000 years ago, long before the advent of classical antiquity. Were they aware that there had been some process of domestication far away in the past? Or where did they think dogs came from? How about other civilizations?

Could a civilian fly directly from a belligerent country to a neutral one surrounded by the other side (for example from UK to Sweden or, or from Germany to Ireland)? Or was a detour via Portugal or Spain necessary? Or was civilian air traffic completely shut down?

I always thought that during this era, Imperial Japan was a dictatorship just like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain, etc, but recently I have seen some people claiming that this was not the case, which made me confused.

Was Imperial Japan a dictatorship during this era or not?

It seems like a common theme that people from the medieval era all the way up to the 1800's had a greater focus on reusable / biodegradable items as well as less waste. For example, old fur trappers would use the animal's brain to tan it's hide and that people used to eat offal and other less desirable parts of animals, whereas today in the developed world most people just throw it away.

My question is, is this accurate for any era of history? It seems like these analyses always ignore the small scale pollution caused by things like tanneries (run off), or unsustainable crop rotations, etc. It sets off my "primitive = closer to nature = good" alarm.

While Greek comedies didn't always equate to modern day comedies, some of the extant plays and writings give us a pretty good idea of what the Greek considered fun. In the case of, say, Lysistrata, that humour was pretty juvenile and crude.

Do we have similar sources for Egyptians? Do we know what the ancient Egyptians considered funny and joked about, especially in plays or other works of literature?

I hear a lot of how the Kentucky long rife gave Americans an advantage in the Revolution and the Seven Years War prior to that. The longer barrel and rifling would give greater range and accuracy over smoothbore muskets and the use of a smaller ball would use less lead and powder. Their renown accuracy was also instrumental in conducting guerrilla warfare. But I imagine these weapons may have been considerably more expensive and definitely time consuming to manufacture. I’m wondering just how common were these weapons in the colonies and if they have become exaggerated in their prevalence. Was their accuracy and range as noticeably advantageous as I heard? Were these weapons common enough to have any significant effect of Revolutionary battlefields? Where there enough of these weapons to be used in mass formation? Or were they limited to sharp shooters? Were these weapons actually prevalent in the war? Or have they been mythologized?

Most sources I can find, state that the Aboriginals experienced intentional killings during the white colonisation of Australia. Yet, I have come across a publication called 'The Fabrication of Aboriginal History' by Keith Windshuttle which states that the massacres of the aboriginals were either fake or grossly misinterpreted. So is there any evidence that the Aboriginals had experienced a genocide, or was it an exaggeration?

Stalin seems to have had a better reputation, or at least much better PR, during his lifetime. Especially during WWII, when the USSR joined the Allies, and the Communist Party USA was at its most popular.

This of course changed after his death, when Khrushchev took his place and denounced him in his 'secret speech'.

So what was the contemporary view of Stalin back then?

The Mix of theology, mysticism, classical influence, and empiricism in Kepler's career is fascinating, beginning with his theory of the orbits of the planets being governed by inscribed Platonic solids and evolving with intense and mathematical study of Brahe's data into his famous three laws.

I knew that Newton and Leibnitz dabbled in alchemy and philosophy respectively, but reading about Kepler made it clear how theology was central to his career. I'm interested in how astronomy "secularized", and also the more general trends of secularization in the sciences (and the decline of scientists viewing themselves as directly part of the tradition of generalist philosophers like the Plato/Aristotle).

I know that, roughly speaking, much of Western Europe in late medieval and early modern history had the principal landed nobility ranks (royalty and other "sovereign" ranks aside) of: Duke, Marquess, Count, Viscount, and Baron (with some regional flavors, such as Earl instead of Count in England, or Freiherr instead of Baron in the HRE).

What's less clear is that, formal precedence aside, how were these titles related to actual power structures, liege/vassal relationships, land ownership, etc?

For example, I read that Marquess was kinda similar to a Count in terms of their land ownership seniority, but they ruled over border territories and thus were considered formally senior, as they were more burdened with defense of the realm against foreign enemies.

Is that accurate or universal? And what about the other titles? If you were a Baron, for example, who was your immediate liege in the feudal system, or otherwise someone you "reported" to? A Viscount, Count, or Earl, who su? Or did some Barons get their land directly from the King, or under "Alloidal title"? In which case, what even controlled what kind of title you were eligible to use? What determined whether you were a Count or a Viscount, for example? Did feudal titles ever change if the property was changed (consolidated or subdivided due to marriage, sale, conquest where it was legally recognized, etc.)?

Or was the whole system largely inconsistent, and one's title had little to do with their actual vassalage/reporting hierarchy in the nobility system of whatever country they were in?

I’ve been doing some reading about the Manchu conquest of China and the cultural assimilation that happened. It seems pretty thorough, but there’s also some areas that really stick out as staying ‘Manchu”. What’s the deal with this? Were things treated differently based on who the ruling elite was dealing with on a case by case basis?

While we’re at it, this this a conscious part of how the Manchu kept control over their territories, or was it something that happened separately?

So, I've done my due diligence and searched the sub and Google to find an answer for this but to no avail. There have been posts here on the topic, but no answers.

In the past, prostitution was seen as a necessary evil, even by the notoriously prudish Catholic Church. Brothels seemed to be a common and regulated thing in Europe, China, Japan and America for quite some time.

So, what happened? In America it is mostly illegal, France criminalized it, Britain expelled them, and now, prostitution is specifically illegal in many, many countries.

What caused the acceptable "necessary evil" to become an illegal activity in so many places?

Was it disease? Pimping? Or just plain disgusted morality?

Especially the Hospitallers and Templar's seem to have a real rivalry in pop culture and books I read, but how much of it is accurate? They're all dedicated to the same mission for the most part, but I guess there would be competition for sponsors and donors.