Nord mead, Greek wine, Egyptian beer, Japanese Sake, and many others… It seems that every society through history has at least one alcoholic beverage associated with it, that was consumed for the sake of consuming it, without any deeper meaning attached to it.

Mushrooms, probably the OG psychedelic, on the other hand is always presented as a shamanistic tool, rather than something people use to get high, while weed isn’t even mentioned throughout history.

How accurate are those representations? Have psychedelic trips truly always been more about the message than the trip? I’m aware that for a long time consuming alcohol was safer than “pure” water, so it’s really not a surprise to me that people have been getting drunk since ever, but have we really never cared much for other drugs, or is that more of a modern choice of not focusing on that aspect of history? Is there any historical context that could indicate some societies or social groups that partook in psychedelic drugs for the sake of it?

Elizabeth I was known through history as being "the Virgin Queen", refusing to marry for love or to align power with another state (ex: Spain). Did Elizabeth I actually have a ceremony where she committed herself in marriage to England?

Also, I own a 16th century Indenture of Lease which has been fully verified and is protected by glass and location, signed by Elizabeth I. It is very precious to me! Thank you for your answers.

Looking for books on the period between Jamestown and French-Indian War. Looked through the subreddit's booklist but didn't find much :/

Fun fact: when Arsenal FC was founded (as Dial Square FC) in 1886, two of its founding members were former Forest players who had moved to Woolwich for work. They wrote home for help with founding the new club, and Nottingham Forest FC sent them a set of kit and a ball. Because of that, Arsenal FC's kit colour is red (the white sleeves were added in 1933).

I understand life was cheap, short and fleeting due to many reasons before hygiene and modern medicine became more prevalent.

Are there any records of people reaching grand old ages in the medieval period for example? How about even before then?

On the personal level, each individual will have their own biases. I was just wondering how did/do handle their own biases when transcribing history as it unfolds? Would it be okay a historian disregards a transcript of recorded events if it goes against their personal biases? If reading a specific record in history, should one look at the author and their affiliations or whatever before digesting what they have recorded?

The reason I ask this is because we're in an age where people would decide for themselves if something was factual or not despite being provided by facts. But if I understood this correctly, history is interpreted by the eyes of the historian and can be contested.

During the civil war the south sought recognition from Britain and other European countries to legitimize their efforts and even gain help (Britain actually gifted them a war vessel during the conflict). There was even talk in Britain of mediation, which hoped to end the fighting and therefore separate the north and south as two different countries.

At this proposition Lincoln and his cabinet were unwavering:

“I expect to maintain this contest until successful or until I die.” -Lincoln

Even during the lowest points in the Union’s effort, I’ve consistently read that Lincoln and Co. were unwilling to consider a reality in which the south achieved their independence. Why?

Once states had seceded, Congress was finally able to pass legislation like the homestead act, and federal funding for the transcontinental railroad. These were all things held up by southern politicians.

Did Lincoln not see this political consolidation as an advantage?

The only reasoning I’ve seen for why Lincoln refused the dissolution of the union is because it was unconstitutional. But I have to believe there is more to it than that.

My only theory is that maybe Lincoln assumed any type of peace would never be permanent, and conflicts would continue to arise as settlers continued to settle the west.

The fighting during the war was, by written accounts, horrific. Was there any situation in which Lincoln would have surrendered to end the slaughter, or would he really have continued fighting as he put it: “.. until successful or until I die.”

I just stumbled upon a thread talking about how the pyramids were actually built by paid artisans and not slaves. Is this true? I was always taught that they were built using slave labor.

I'm looking for something not too opaque, but also robust, as best those things can be balanced.

I tried asking /r/ancientgreece, but no replies so far.

Thanks!

In both pop culture and historical records, Dong Zhuo is described as repulsive tyrant hated by everyone and cursed by the gods. However, most history is written by the victors. With no evidence to suggest otherwise, it's generalised that Dong Zhuo is bad, but is there any right thing that we can give credit to Dong Zhuo?

The inventions of Heron of Alexandria of the 2nd century AD are well-known, and namely, the steam-powered turbine called the aeolipile - has been used to suggest the possibility of an earlier industrial revolution than what occurred in reality - yet it seems there is a distinct possibility of the precursor to da Vinci's steam-powered cannon (the Architonnerre) having been invented by Archimedes (as da Vinci himself asserted), thus pushing the possibility of using steam for power to the 3rd century BC - not to mention the fact the aeolipile has been described by Vitruvius in De Architectura about a hundred years earlier than when Heron of Alexandria himself flourished.

Yet during my reading, I have stumbled upon the interpretation of an early experiment with flight performed by Archytas, a dear friend of Plato and a fascinating person in his own right, being powered by steam, based on the following passage:

"But that which Archytas the Pythagorean is said to have devised and accomplished ought to seem no less marvellous, but yet not wholly absurd. For not only many eminent Greeks, but also the philosopher Favorinus, a most diligent searcher of ancient records, have stated most positively that Archytas made a wooden model of a dove with such mechanical ingenuity and art that it flew; so nicely balanced was it, you see, with weights and moved by a current of air enclosed and hidden within it."

- Aulus Gellius, "Attic Nights", Book X, 12.9

How likely is it that this small device really used steam at all? Is the modern conjecture of a steam-powered bird model too daring a historical thesis? Are there any more possible uses of steam predating Heron of Alexandria, or even possibly Archytas at the break of the 5th and 4th century BC?

We all know that William was the royal governor of New Jersey and head of the loyalists during the American Revolutionary War. After America won he went back to England. However, what did he do back in England for the rest of his life? Was he in politics? Did he resume his job as an attorney? I have found absolutely no information regarding his later life.

I'm reading Bullshit Jobs, where Graeber quotes EP Goodwin, a missionary from 1880:

“You can hardly find a group of ranchmen or miners from Colorado to the Pacific who will not have on their tongue’s end the labor slang of Denis Kearney, the infidel ribaldry of [atheist pamphleteer] Robert Ingersoll, the Socialistic theories of Karl Marx.”

Is this actually representative? Or was this just Goodwin's exaggeration?

Before industrialization and discovery of oil/gas/electricity, what were the equivalent of energy and critical resources? Did it remain the same or change depending on era? (antiquity, medieval, etc.)

Did grain qualify as such a resource for the Romans?