What other movements have we seen where women campaigned asking for equal pay/positions or gender equality in other industries?

I know that many polytheistic religions believe in some higher power above the gods, which is either the actual controller of everything or which actually is everything. For Ancient Greece, the power was the Fates. From what I've read of Ancient Greek literature, they come up a lot, but never really as characters in their own right, rather as a vague, mysterious force the characters have to work around. Is this universal, or are there pagan stories where the ultimate powers beyond the gods are portrayed as characters with recognizable personalities, emotions, and motivations in the same way that, e. g., the Olympians in Homer's epics are?

[deleted]

Was it common practice among the Romans, like Native Americans would name children after auspicious signs around the birth?

I know the Great Britain was afraid the revolution might set a bad example for them, but did they try to help the French monarchy in any way? Or, did any other country consider or attempt to take the opportunity to attack France for an easy land-grab?

I am wanting to take a deep dive into Greek history and to start from the beginning. I've decided to start with the Aegean Bronze Age (around 3000 BC).

My question is what are the best books to get an in depth understanding of this period? Primary and secondary sources are both welcome.

I've seen a lot of love given to Eric Cline books among a few other, but most the praise I have seen is a few years old and I was looking to get the most up to date information.

With this question I'm primarily citing the executions of medieval nobles, but am also encompassing time periods and circumstances which are "close enough".

Whenever a noble was sentenced to death in Medieval Europe, their execution was usually public, at the town square or whatever, so that everyone could see them dead. There were exceptions, naturally, but - as far as I know - most executions were public. We know that it was tradition for the condemned to bribe the executioner to ensure the execution isn't botched, and there were also stories of some nobles raising their arms to signal the executioner to strike (which means their arms weren't bound).

Now, if it was just a common thief or murderer being brought in under guard, it's easy to see how escaping the noose would be damn near impossible. But the nobility had money, and they were rarely restrained. Why not just bribe the guards to give you a minute head start, then just run? Someone with gold and status - even if facing death - shouldn't have too much trouble hiding out in the countryside or fleeing the country, right? I mean, I doubt it was easy to stage a nationwide manhunt in the 13th century. Once you got out of the city escape was more or less guaranteed.

So, given that they had nothing to lose (what are their captors going to do, kill them?), why didn't any - or even most - nobles being put to death try to get out of it by simply running? Was it an honor thing? Did they fear the crowd more than the noose? Or have a good number of prisoners actually escaped from the scaffold, we just never hear of them?

We were discussing this in history today. Did Britain and France just dislike Russia so much that they ignored the atrocities of the Ottomans? Or did they have no clue any of that was going on?

Furthermore, how would a professional historian go about investigating such a broad, general claim? Is it possible to even answer the question?

The aforementioned teacher pointed to the Greek myths- in particular, the major role of destiny or fate therein- to justify his claim. He stated that the concept of free will arose in order to justify the concept of hell.

Saw this on a sub earlier and thought here would be the best place to post the question as there weren t concrete answers

I quite curious about this, just watching some clips over at r/CombatFootage, it's gotten me curious. If i was to have been conscripted for the UK within WW2 as a pilot, how much training would I have had? I've always assumed it wasn't as much as I would think due to the need for pilots in the air, but this is me coming into this topic with absolutely no prior knowledge.

I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask this question, but I have often heard the claim that Galicia contains half the villages in Spain or that Galicia contains an extraordinary amount of small villages.

What would be the historical trends for this to occur?

It just seems very anti-Christian I guess? I asked my dad and he said it was something to with the movie "Birth of a Nation" but did not go into further details. Also why did they hate Catholics?

Hi,

I've been curious as to how common the supposed mass human sacrifices of the Aztecs actually were. What sources do we have for this? Are there any good books that discusses this subject?

In Christopher Hitchens article in The Atlantic titled "The Medals of His Defeats" a polemic against Churchill's reputation within the special relationship, he makes the following argument:

​

" Irving has a great facility for innuendo; its most successful application is the repeated suggestion that Churchill used his foreknowledge of German air raids sheerly for grandstanding purposes. On the nights when he knew that Göring's bombers would overfly London on their way to, say, Coventry, he would make a point of standing on the Air Ministry roof, or of taking a stroll in the Downing Street garden, thus impressing his staff and subordinates with his pluck and daring and sangfroid. On the nights when Enigma gave him private information about a raid on London itself, he would decamp to the country house of a wealthy friend. This accumulation of detail is so subversive of the legend as to make a greater difference in the mind of the reader than many more-serious shortcomings of generalship. The allegation has now been in print for fifteen years, and I have never seen it addressed by the Great Man's defenders, let alone rebutted."

​

The Irving he references here is David Irving. I don't need to give any details in a community of academic historians as to why the authorship automatically renders all points made at the very least spurious. This article is from 2002. So, is Hitchens right in his assertion that this point made by Irving has never been rebutted?

One thing that perplexes me in British history is how did the modern UK House of Commons came to be. I am no history major so most of my "research" on British parliaments tells me the story of the balance of power between the Lords and the King from Magna Carta to the Glorious Revolution. I really like to know how and why the House of Commons was formed and what brought about the transition of the UK from a country governed by the nobility to one where the country can virtually run without a King/Queen.

By "first major" I mostly mean "early notable". I searched for information on the topic online but somehow failed to find anything not related to modern dredging efforts and ships. I am writing a fantasy story involving a maritime nation using different types of ports and harbours, and would like to understand how to approach this particular aspect in a historical context.

In most histories I've read about a single figure (I'm more familiar with those on ancient figures e.g. Caesar, Alexander etc.), it seems hard enough to work out what they did, so why they did it is often left out. Whenever the author does attempt to describe motivations, they almost always look at what the figure hoped to gain and nothing else. This is a problem because rational goals are just a fragment of human motivation. Most is unconscious, and psychologists have known that at least since Freud. So my question is are there many good historians out there who also understand psychology and attempt to make a more complete assessment of motivation?