Was it because other Europeans didn't want a powerful nation in the continent especially in such a strategic position or was there simply no sense of a common identity

Watching the documentary 'The Last Dukes', there is a clear theme that the wealth of the aristocracy of Britain has been in perpetual decline especially since the early 1900s as many lost their large residences. What was the cause of this shift?

So far information seem to be split when it comes to the topic of bathing in medieval Europe. Either I hear about people having strange misconceptions on hygiene and refusing to bathe or I hear about public bathhouses or other practices. I also hear conflicting stories on the church taking stances for both for and against bathing. So what seems to be a more realistic picture for the period?

When did images of Jesus as many people know him begin to arise and why was he depicted like that?

As the title suggests, when did firearms technology develop such that the iconic rifle of the 18th and 19th centuries was no longer used, both in terms of militarily and for everyday hunting on the frontier.

[deleted]

Whenever I read about the administration of Western Medieval kingdoms, books often describe an overly simplistic “feudal pyramid” with the king at the top and the nobility under him as vassals. This is also often accompanied in the text by an explanation that the vassals are entitled to all tolls and rents on these lands, while the king is expected to live off his own demesne.

The implication is that all nobles are on tax free lands. But then who runs the castles and towns of the royal desmense?

I’ve read that by the time of Philip Augustus, officials such as seneschals take on judicial and taxation responsibilities in the demesne, but what about prior to that in late Carolingian times or during the reign of Hugh Capet? Who were these demesne royal officials? Were they considered nobles? Were they paid in lands like the greater nobles or paid a portion of the tax?

Speaking directly to if the actual atomic explosion didn't happen, were there worries that Japan would get their hands on potentially dangerous technology or at that point most military leaders not worried about Japan's offensive capability/Research at that point?

I was reading on a passage about Heracles' worships and cult, and it has Plutarch mentioned that a priest of Heracles were forbidden to have sex with a woman for a year after their appointment.

That got me questioning if celibacy was encouraged among the priests and priestesses in Ancient Greece? And even then does the sexual norms extend to all of them? Like a priestess of Hera was restricted from having sex, but a priest of Zeus can and have children.

Looking at old rotary phones they only had 0-9, but modern (touch tone?) phones also have * and #.

Why / when were they added? What was the first use case?

Were there arguments over adding these?

My question is on something I don’t know much about, so I’m sorry I can’t narrow it down much. I know India is big, I know it has dozens of significant and often unintelligible languages, and I know it had many different states like, say, Medieval Europe during certain periods. In Europe, courts spoke in French to get around language barriers. Was there a common court language in India?

A friend of mine and I had a discussion about said subject.

His perspective in short is that women through history had a say in and was largely supportive of the patriarchy. Up until the start of the industrial revolution, which led to women being able to vote etc.

My argument is that they (women) were being systematically repressed by the patriarchy and excluded from the decision-making that would give them the power to change the status-quo.

Our problem is (from what we can gather) that the definition of "repression" is defined after the fact. Are there any evidence that suggest that women felt and saw themselves as repressed or is it just something we (from our modern values) put upon them?

Amongst certain groups within the US there is the idea that only 3% of the population actively fought against the Crown during the American Revolution. I’ve read elsewhere on this sub that this is a myth and it was closer to 1/3. But where did the 3%er myth come from and why did it get so much traction?

There have been multiple references to the period on r/100yearsago

I recently graduated with my BA in history and one particular subject that has interested me is early Christian history. A theory put forth by a minority of scholars known as the Christ myth theory suggests that Jesus never was a real person but I don’t see why this doesn’t hold water because the only documents that talk about his life are Matthew mark luke and John which are religious documents. In the gospels, you see a lot of parables and direct quotes from Jesus yet the gospels were written decades after he would have died. Unlike other religious figures such as Muhammad and Buddha, Jesus himself did not write any books and the gospels while they seem like primary sources since Jesus is speaking in first person, they are not. If we applied this standard to any other historical figure, we would not know much about them. Matthew and Luke used mark as a source and a document that is lost known as the “Q” source. The gospel of John is completely different from Matthew mark and Luke and gives a different account of Jesus. Imagine if we first started writing about the archduke Franz Ferdinand in 2019? We would not have anything to go on about his life since no one who is currently alive knew him personally and we only have writings of people who did personally know him. How could we accurately directly quote him? We could not. How do scholars know for sure that Jesus is not made up? We don’t have the sources that we have on other historical figures and the gospels are a copy of a copy of a copy.