Seems like you'd have to have some pretty unorthodox thinking to want to keep a big nest of stinging angry insects who are defensive of their homes around you, and then to have the intention of breaking them open and harvesting honey. How did early man get it in their heads this was a good idea?

The Europeans since antiquity have recognised that drinking water had questionable safety, and preferred the safer beers and watered down wines.

In the Islamic world, with the opinion against wines, how did people address the problem of water sanitation?

I've read many times the saying that Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War should be taken with a grain of salt, since they were written by Caesar as a propaganda piece for his own political purposes, rather than being a fair and neutral historical account.

While I don't doubt that Caesar, as an astute and cunning political leader, would be motivated to write in his own favor for his own political purposes, having actually read the book, it doesn't really read much like "propaganda" in the modern sense we understand. The book does not employ many black-and-white tactics we're accustomed to when thinking about "propaganda". It does not extensively preach morality, exclusively demonize the enemies, or sugarcoat Caesar's own actions. For example:

• Caesar gives a fair and nuanced account of his enemies' perspective and motivations, such as as explaining the reasons of Helvetii migrations due to need, rather than a blind desire for conquest.

• Caesar doesn't (exclusively) present himself as a liberator; rather, he explains his actions in rather realpolitique terms, such as preventing the Helvetii from crossing due to political reasons, rather than because it's "the morally right things to do".

• Caesar acknowledges the patriotic motivations of leaders such as Vercingetorix, clearly describing the latter as a brave freedom fighter trying to save his people from Roman yoke. He doesn't paint Vercingetorix as some evil insurgent, nor contest his own actions as being that of a conqueror.

• Caesar acknowledges the mistakes and errors of his own army, such as when one of his legions was rused out of their camp, ambushed and destroyed, or when he (almost) ran out of supplies due to putting too much trust in an unreliable ally.

• Caesar makes no attempt to hide atrocities committed by his troops, sometimes under his command, such as ordering the slaughter of civilians in captured towns that refused to surrender. Granted, this may have been the normal practice of the day, but Caesar doesn't try to paint himself as uniquely merciful or benevolent, at least on those occasions where he is resisted.

Overall, if anything, Caesar's account of himself in the book reads like he portrays himself as a ruthless, efficient, and harsh but reasonable, leader. Comply with his demands, and you'll do well and be given mercy. Oppose him, and be destroyed with no mercy or remorse. And, having read the rest of Caesar's biography, it seems that he portrayed himself exactly as the kind of person he actually was, both at home and abroad.

Caesar's Commentarii obviously portray Caesar in the way he wanted to be portrayed, and in a way which would be well-received by a contemporary audience, who wanted a "firm and effective ruler" figure rather than an "angel of mercy" one. From this perspective, one could call the book propaganda. But I don't see it as "propaganda" in the sense of deceit, embellishment, morality preaching, or black-and-white demonizing, the techniques we commonly think of today when considering modern propaganda.

So, were the Commentarii really a "propaganda" piece, in the way we currently understand the term? Could Caesar have produced a politically favorable writing, yet one which preserved the truth, accuracy, and objectivity one expects of a reputable historian?

This might be a controversial question, so allow me to explain.

As we all know colonists imported slaves from Africa. So initially, we had a pretty small population of a distinctive group of people, who could not breed with people outside of their race due to systematic segregation. So, we had a pretty small population who was isolated in extreme conditions where the easily sick and weak would die leaving only the strongest. So did this intense force of extreme tragedy homogenize genes amongst black people to make them naturally more fit?

I recently saw a show on Netflix set around the time of the Shinmiyangyo incident in Korea in 1871. One of the main characters is a Korean-American captain in the US Marine Corps. Given the attitudes toward minorities at that time, this seems like a stretch.

How likely is it that a Korean-American could rise to commissioned officer in the US military in the 1870s?

The entire song is about comparing someone to great or famous people. Was Disney already that popular?

I recall that when I read Sting's memoir Broken Music, in his descriptions of the various places he lived as a child and young adult in northern England (1950s-60s), they invariably were heated by coal stoves or gas space heaters, never central heating. Is central heating still not common in the UK? If it is, when did it start to become a regular thing?

I have been reading "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert P Bix, and the author is painting a narrative in which Emperor Hirohito could have successfully sided with the civilian government against the military in the early days of the "China Incident".

Do we know if the military had any contingency plans in the event that this had happened? Towards the late 1930's, early 1940's, the military seems to be very willing to perform assassinations in order to assert their control over the government, but it seems like they only grew this bold after there repeated transgressions were allowed by the Emperor.

Did Emperor Hirohito realistically have an opportunity to double down on support of the ailing Taisho Democracy, and prevent a military takeover of the system?

I'm especially curious about what the Soviets thought about the fact that MLK was a Reverend and the role of religion in the civil rights movement generally.

I don’t know when the dark ages began other than it was sometime after the fall of the Roman Empire, and it seems that people just abandoned creative thinking and scientific advancement made during the time of the Greeks/Romans until the resurgence of those ideas in the Renaissance. (Obviously this question generalizes the time period as I am sure some advancements were made but this time period is known for its lack of advancements).

At the turn of last century the tract of Broadway between 47th and 42nd Street was the United States' preeminent theater district. While depression-era hardship later forced the conversion of many theaters into movie houses, I get the feeling that the decline of the neighborhood in the post-war era must have been driven by factors that I don't fully understand. Likewise, I'd be interested in learning how the area was able to stage a resurgence in the 1990s, rapidly returning to being a major center for shopping and entertainment.

As someone who grew up in the catholic school system in the US, I was always told the church could trace the papacy and Church’s founding all the way back to the apostle peter, however, I recently discovered this claim may be more dubious than I even originally expected. Would it be more accurate from a secular perspective to say that St. Paul founded the church? Thanks.