I recently found out I have two bulging discs and they hurt like a mother. It lead me to thinking about history (as pain often does) and I began to wonder how these issues would be dealt with by ancient hunter-gatherer societies.

What would the prime hunter do if he hurt his lower back and literally couldn’t go out spearing things? Did they utilize medicine for this situation? What about severe cases where someone became disabled at a young age?

Also makes me wonder if a lot of these issues are more prevalent in modern day society due to office jobs, sitting for long hours, etc.

Thanks for helping me feed my curiosity.

Did they simply return to a camp later and re-enlist, live a life of a fugitive or something else?

I have several general budgets for various things but mostly naval expenditure in Tudor England from 1542 to 1559. So it spans several monarchs. It generally shows a move from annual naval expenditure of approx 7k to 12k over that time frame. What i need is comparisons. Does anyone have a good way of working out or sources of 16th century English inflation (as i know it was a big problem!) or some variation of gdp or total state expenditure etc. Im basically just trying to work out if that is a real increase in budget.

When doing research on ancient history and going to websites like Wikipedia, it will tell you the date that an event occurred, but it isn't usually clear why a certain event was dated that way.

For example, the Wikipedia article for the Great Fire of Rome states: " The Great Fire of Rome was an urban fire in July of the year AD 64".

How did they actually get this date? Are there any good techniques in finding out why something was dated the way it was?

Hello guys,

​

I'm researching everyday life in late 19th century in what today would be France & Germany, and I'm trying to get a sense of how everyday life would look for an average jewish family, what is their general education, career options, attitude and outlook on life, etc. While I found a lot on christian families, especially upper class, I want to work out specific similarities and differences.

I have a couple of local research options but I'm somewhat lost on how to get started on those, as I feel I am lacking knowledge on context and especially on how to tell good sources from bad (e.g. biased, politically motivated, antisemitic) so I wanna get started with some curated ones before I go out into the "real world".

​

Thanks,

​

Alex

The most obvious ones would be the names of those two religions themselves, Muslim/Moslem and Hindu/Hindoo, though I could probably rattle off a couple dozen of them ranging from proper names (sects, religious figures, local ethnic groups, placenames, etc.) to cultural practices, foods, crafts, and god knows what else if you gave me an hour to think about it. So long as the right phonemes are being expressed and everyone knows what word it is when they see it, I don't really understand how one anglicized spelling can be considered "more accurate" a translation than any other when the language of origin uses an alphabet that doesn't precisely correspond to the Latin alphabet anyhow (not that the Latin alphabet precisely corresponds to itself half the time either, but that's beside the point).

I am thinking a lot about my grandchildren at the moment and how they will deal with life in the coming century. Some people are drawing comparisons with the current situation in England and the Victorian era. If a middle class girl in Victorian England - let us say in Birmingham or at least outside London - didn't want to get married and settle down did she have other options? I am aware of some Victorian women who had careers and were influential in literature and science but I don't have a clear picture of how often that could happen.

I heard this from someone and it makes sense, but I don't if it is actually historically accurate or not.

Like for example, take Perseus. Was the story all made up? Or did a guy just kill a snake and another guy thought to make it sound cooler? Is there even evidence for something so far back?

I see this debate everywhere. Some people argue it is not, as they were not lead by the goal of national unity and some kingdoms even sided with the British. Also the fact it was mainly confined to North India. Others argue it is because of the mass insurrection throughout the country. But what exactly is it, if it can be classified as such at all?

[deleted]

Was life just generally tough all round for troops fighting in the civil war or from food to medicine did any side have some sort of edge?

These two have always kind of puzzled me, since they don't seem to have followed the standard paths of European national genesis. They never really had independent states to speak of, don't have significant linguistic or religious differences from their neighbours, and have spent most of the last millennium split between various neighbouring powers. They just seem to have popped out of nowhere from the 1917 Russian Revolution, but still manage to have strong national identities and traditions. How did that happen?

How did Jefferson, himself a product of plantation aristocracy and old money, come to see yeoman freeholding as the ideal republican system of economy? Did he ever practice this philosophy himself? Or is this too great an oversimplification of what he truly advocated?

Edit: Apologies, by colonial society, I meant early American colonial society.

I’m reading my textbook and I don’t understand a word it’s saying.

Did this architectural style catch on or even originate elsewhere? Am I falling prey to common misconception? Why does it seem as though timber framing and wattle and daub construction was only commonly used South of the baltic/north seas, and north of the Alps/Pyrenees?

Did any tank destroyer units serve in the Pacific in WWII and if so what vehicles did the use ex M3 GMC, M10 GMC etc

I read something about a German from saxony fighting for the Swedes during the 30 years war and it implies that a lot of Germans were in the Swedish army is it true.

“"The history of Jürgen Schneeweiss prior to 1642 is unknown. Undoubtedly, he was among the many Germans recruited into the Swedish army during the Thirty Years War.” did the Germans of saxony join the Swedish army directly? I was under the impression that they would just join the electorate of saxony’s army and fight with the Swedes.