I’m very interested in the idea of Egyptian mythology reflecting its history, like how Horus originated in Nekhen/Heirakonpolis and Set in Nubt and came to represent Upper and Lower Egypt. And how Horus and Isis we’re incorporated in later. I want to understand the original forms of these deities and their associations and how they developed into later forms.

Edit: I didn't specify I was talking about the American Revolutionary War in 1776.

1. Did Martin Luther ever meet Charles V? If so, was it at the Diet of Worms?

2. When and why did Austria become seperate from the Holy Roman Empire? At what point was it fully independent?

3. What did Francis II dissolve the century-old Holy Roman Empire only to carbon copy it into the Confederation of the Rhine?

4. I know the HRE didn't have a capital per se, but where was the government and the emperor's court centered?

5. Why didn't the HRE attempt to centralize on a wider scale once feudalism began to decline in Europe?

6. Who is the greatest Holy Roman Emperor? (I say Charlemagne, Charles V, Maximillian I, Charles IV, and Frederick Barbarossa)

I understand that it’s beneficial to pack such a forceful punch at the enemy line and that the liens were used for cover and such, but why were guns used over swords and arrows and other more traditional weapons (relative to the time) in combat if muskets were so inaccurate and took so long to reload?

I'm starting from zero here, I know basically nothing other than that they started in Italy and there was a strong distinction between guild labor and unguilded labor, and thus guild craftsmen and unguilded workers. I am interested in that, as well as their relationship, if any to the peasantry in particular and society writ large. Thanks!

I've been reading about the possible causes of the phenomena that was the moral panic of witchcraft and the occult. I'm primarily looking at European studies, though this may be applicable to the witch trials of North America also. Numerous scholars have suggested the contamination of ergot; a poisonous fungus that can grow on crops such as rye, millet and barley. If consumed, for example through loaves of bread, porridge or beer, you are afflicted with convulsive ergotism. Symptoms of ergotism include nausea, hallucinations, confusion, the feeling of insects under your skin, gangrenous limbs which fall off and death. These are all very similar to many symptoms of 'bewitchment' in records from witch trials. Some investigations in Norwegian witch trials even sourced 'bewitchment' back to flour-based items.

​

Okay so, this seems plausible enough, though I wonder why it happens in this time frame? We have had crops of rye and millet for hundreds of years prior to these events. As far as I know, the scale and method of farming is unrelated to the growth of the fungus ergot, but it's dependant on climate; ergot thrives in cold, damp conditions. The Little Ice Age (1300s to 1700s) neatly coincides with the first recorded witch trial in Europe (Alice Kyteler in 1324) until the decline in the 1600s/1700s. There have certainly been theories of climate-driven witch hunting, though they primarily focused on devastating natural events in which people chose to blame witches for all their woes.

​

So my queries are:

What were the effects of the Little Ice Age on crop production and quality? Would this at all influence the growth of fungi such as ergot? (I really hope there's some historical climatologists about...)

Is this a likely explanation at all? Especially considering the geographic scope, i.e. Scandinavia and Italy have very different climates but both engaged in witch hunting.

​

Thank you and apologies if this was a bit of convoluted question!

[deleted]

When Julius Cesar discusses the cause of the Gaulic rebellion, he goes on to discuss how the Gauls are freedom loving and could not stand to be subjected to slavery. This seems to show Gaul in the right while showing the actions of Rome in the wrong, why would Cesar present this explanation to the Romans when all it accomplishes is giving Romans a reason to support the actions of the Gauls and claim that what Cesar has done in the region is wrong.

The stereotype of a factory laborers workplace during the industrial revolution in Britain is often cartoonishly awful: child laborers, the constant threat of injury or death, 14 hr work days 7 days a week, etc.

So why did people choose this? Were they coerced into it, forced into factories to repay debts? Were industrial laborers closer to slaves or indentured servants than a normal wage workforce?

Or was there simply no other work available, and living in the countryside as a farm worker rather than as a factory worker in the city was not an option for anyone? Were their choices simply "work in a factory or starve to death"?

[deleted]

Hello Roman historians,

I was wondering if y'all knew the source for this story, which supposedly took placed during the Pyrrhic wars. It is cited in the book I'm reading as Frontinus (I, 13.9), but upon research Frontinus (AKA Sextus Julius Frontinus) wrote a book on aqueducts and military strategems in which there are no stories of trunk-chopping. Any of you have any insight? I was able to find the story in another source (Orosius IV), but Frontinus, being more contemporary to the event itself, seems a better source. Any help is appreciated!

I live in Chicago and pass by the IWW world headquarters each day, but it's a very small storefront and office, and I know it used to be a much more prominent organization. My grandfather was a sailor, a member of the IWW, and a very vocal socialist. He had an IWW songbook, and I recognize some of the songs from Woodie Guthrie and Pete Seeger.

Like why did protestantism spread so wide,became politically backed by nobles and church and last to this day while previous heresies like the lollards,the fraticelli,the bogomilists,the cathar,the waldensians and the hussites?

Why did these heresies fail and became footnotes in history but protestantism(both luteranism and reformed branches) rose to become so important?

When evaluating the nazi party's hatred for non aryan people, the spotlight goes on the Jewish people first and foremost, as well as Romany Gypsies and the like. However, I haven't seen a lot of information on the experience of black people in nazi Germany. Were there many instances of similar treatment? If not, why did the nazi party not put as much emphasis on them? Were they seen as not as much of a threat to the aryan people?

As I understand it Charlemagne would go on to be declared the successor of Rome by the catholic pope. With this in mind why did he not decide to conquer Iberia which was traditionally the lands of the WRE? I would assume a factor involved would be the armies of the Umayyad caliphate as well as the logistical nightmare of the mountainous and rough terrain, but I would also think that because the land had been occupied for centuries the region would be better mapped out/settled with more opportunities to extract wealth from. What stopped him from continuing the legacy of his ancestor Charles Martell? Wouldn’t the pope have approved more of him retaking the west rather than push into the east?