My impression is that most people in the 1700s would believe in ghosts haunting houses, but that most people today would not. When did that change? In particular, during the 1960s when there were many government funded psychadelic experiments, would the average American have believed in ghosts?

Both Flanders and Spain were under Hapsburg rule until the early 18th century, but the Dutch East India Company was created in the early 17th century. I'd always understood the Netherlands and Spain to be colonial enemies, but I guess that's just post- War of Succession? Why don't we hear much about Spain's involvement in Indonesia as we do about the Philippines? Did Flanders and Spain operate as separate entities even while under the Hapsburg Empire?

I see a lot on the number killed during the genocide but I’m having trouble finding how many Cambodians followed Pol Pot by choice and implemented his Year Zero plan.

What was it like to be taken captive and enslaved by Vikings during a raid, or sold into slavery to the Vikings? Were they particularly cruel? Would they use you for amusement? Could they use slaves as part of currency? Were there different kind of slaves? Could you earn your freedom? What was it like if you were a woman? Once a slave, would you travel with your owner?

I've read Gaiman's "Norse Mythology", and the first myths gave me the impression that Loki was, though mischievous and sometimes troublesome, mostly a friend of the Aesir. He was responsible for much of their powers and treasures (Gungnir, Sleipnir, Mjollnir, the wall around Asgard, etc) and he helps them fix many problems (for example, when Mjollnir is stolen by a giant). Though he often causes problems, these mostly never seem intentional or malicious, and at most harmless amusement. He also always fixes these problems eventually. He eventually kills Balder and insults the gods ( i know this depends on whether you believe the prose or poetic edda, and can be disputed), and kills a servant at an autumn feast, and, realizing he has gone too far, he exiles himself from Asgard until they forget his actions. The gods still set out for him, though, and the eventually punish him by setting him up in a cave with snake poison dripping on his head. This seems overly harsh, especially when considering that Thor killed people without reason often and was not punished for it.

It is fairly obvious that Odin did not submit to fate and destiny, choosing to try and fight Ragnarok instead. It seems evident that punishing Loki so harshly would cause him to fight against them in Ragnarok, and considering Odin's nature it too seems strange that he would choose to do that instead of forgiving Loki.

The same happens with Fenrir. The wolf had a good relationship with the gods and especially Tyr, and he even says, supposedly, that he would have fought on the side of the gods if they had not tied him up. Taking this into account, it appears that both Loki's and Fenrir's eventual roles in Ragnarok are self fulfilling prophecies.

Are they so, and was the topic ever adressed by the Norse or in the Eddas? Was Loki considered evil or just somewhat mischievous? He certainly appears to be, all in all, a good person, like a child that makes mistakes but then tries his best to fix them. Where can I learn more about Norse mythology and Loki specifically? I've heard that the Prose Edda might have been influenced by Christianity or specifically altered to survive the Church's 'supervision'. If this is so, couldnt this have changed our modern view of Loki?

My question is, did Indians just go back to being complacent about it? I haven’t been able to find any additional resistance to the use of animal fat in cartridges.

The german book "Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien" by Jacob Burckhardt cited that the Navy of Venice contained 3000 Navigli, 300 Navi and 45 Galere in 1423. I am pretty sure that "Galere" means galleys. A modern translator doesnt really help me in that regard, as Navigli and Navi are just translated as "ships". I guess the problem lies with the Words being from medieval italian with an venetian accent and that is´nt a language i will find a translator for. But i hope there may be someone in this subreddit, who can understand the language. Thank you for helping and sry for my english, im not a native speaker :)

Additionally, would you consider the book a good read? I've heard that Lawrence provides some insightful moral commentary, but I sometimes lose interest in heavily embellished accounts of history. Thanks :)

Why aren't we using the Holocene calendar or any other calendar that will show more of Human history, especially not in "negative" years?

If I am going to read one book on the Doolittle Raid, which one should I pick?

Thanks in advance!

What was the highest level of education a man or woman born a peasant could attain in 16th century Europe?

Long story short, I'm a history dabbler, post Roman Britain being of particular interest, probably more knowledgeable than most but nowhere near the standard that I see here. I've gotten hooked on a show (not Vikings) and the history is much more solid than I'm used to, not good enough to believe hook line and sinker but good enough to suspect a very solid historical consultant.

One thing of note is that all sides (usually Saxon vs. Danes) are using shield walls, this is good, I understand they were common. I like the depiction of combat as primarily a shoving match, assisted by sharp and pointy things to break the wall.

I'm confused if there is a historical basis for the formations they are using.

I've seen the Saxon shield wall as depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry, close rank, shields locked but only one level of shields. These forces are depicted with multiple levels of shields (low, chest, overhead) almost like a variant on the Roman Testudo, which to my understanding wasn't a fighting formation, just missile protection while moving.

I know sources are sketchy, but is there source material out there actually describing anything resembling that?

[deleted]