I'm writing a story where the army of the protagonist has a very middle eastern look and I want to know how to describe equipment and armor for soldiers ranging from basic soldiers all the way to rich guys on horses

This seems like a weird concept since we all take fire for granted these days. But I am very curious if there are any writing or evidence explaining what fire meant to ancient humans. Was it thought of like a regular permanent object? Like a rock? Was it though of like a living object that lived and died? These people had no understanding of combustion or thermodynamics. So what was their general mindset. Or maybe they didnt attempt to explain the nature of things at all and just took it for grated as well.

I've heard the argument made Anarchism did not die and instead changed to a different name with Libertarianism and its subsections. I can see the merit in that point, but that's not what I'm asking.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, Anarchism was a publicly legitimate and influential movement. When/why/how did that stop being the case? How did we go from loud, proud Anarchists actively shaping history in the Spanish Civil War, the Paris Commune, and the Russian Revolution to the fringe movement it is today?

So apart from the Byzantines who were invaded, do we have any commentaries or mentions from people in the Lombard kingdom, the Frankish realms, or the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms? Were, for example, contemporary non-Greek religious writers like Bede aware of the Islamic expansion?

In 1071 The Eastern Roman Empire suffered a humiliating defeat to the Seljuk Turks in Magikert and from there on, the Empire started to decline. In 1453, the Capital Constantinople was sacked and conquered by the Ottoman Turks. But I'm wondering. Was Constantinople the last Byzantine city to fall and if not, which city was it? In essence, what was the last day of the political existence of the Roman Empire?

I never see this mentioned anywhere, but it could not have been easy.

[deleted]

There was a sentiment of "oh shit they're gonna comme for us next" or "they must be stopped" ? Were they trusted? They had any nickname for them?

I learned recently that the trope of the classic princess (virgin, pure, moral, sings, dances, etc.) that is so ubiquitous in old fairytales is newer than the stories in which we find them. They were added during the Victorian period.

It got me thinking, what other cultural ideas did the Victorians give us that is way newer than we think? I'm not just thinking about stories, but also traditions and morals perhaps.

I realize this topic may be a bit broad. Feel free to narrow it down to an example you are familiar with. It's just for the sake of interest. If there is a good book on this topic, I'd love a recommendation.

I'm curious if this is something anyone would know about. I'm assuming that at the time this wasn't something anyone would've been thinking about.

I’ve read a lot of quotes from great figures from Ancient Rome and Greece, and they always seem to speak as though they come from a Shakespeare play. Is this because the grammar is broadly the same and so this offers the most direct translation or do translators chose to use these arcane words/grammar choices because it feels authentic to the past? ... Peter Jones quotes a dialogue written by Livy: “Had I not been a mother, Rome would not be under attack; had I not born a son, I would be dying a free woman in a free land. As it is, I have nothing to suffer that could bring greater disgrace on you, or misery on myself. But I shall not remain miserable for long for these, however, understand that, if you remain fixed of purpose, nothing but early death or long enslavement is in store”. ... this isn’t the “worst” quote but it is the one that prompted by question. It really brought me back to reading Twelfth Night aged 16.

We hear about the 4 phases of the 30 Years War, Bohemian, Danish, Swedish, and French. I was wondering if the people who were living in this time period viewed the war as a constant war, or if after every phase did they view it as a new war that was happening right after the old one ended.

I’ve read that highly-trained units of the Napoleonic period could manage just 3-4 rounds per minute via musket, and fire was only effective within a 100 yard range. It strikes me that bowmen would enjoy similar range, with much higher rates of fire.

For example, wouldn't some Republican politicians think that a Union without the South would significantly shift the national Overton window in their direction?

Are there any records of native americans thoughts and practices towards hurricanes. I'm thinking of people living in Florida and the Caribbean islands. Did they know when hurricanes were coming? to what extent did they prepare and react to these storms? did they build their homes to survive hurricanes? are there any stories, myths, or folk tales about hurricanes from native americans?

The Rosetta Stone's key role at deciphering hieroglyphs is undisputable. It is my understanding that because Ptolemaic rulers refused to learn the local language (except Cleopatra VII), official texts were also translated into Ancient Greek. Are there any deeper reasons behind this detachment for the local language, or could that had been an act of what we would interpret today as "too much hassle"? If so, it seems to me that never in the History of the human race shall we be more grateful for such a "lazy" mentality! We "unlocked" the gates of Ancient Egypt because of it! (although I don't know if the Greek text was the main tool in the translation process or the demotic part also played a significant role). But you get the idea. More broadly, what were the attitudes/perceptions of language learning in Ptolemaic Egypt? What do the historical records tell us about it?