Today, at least in the west, we take it for granted that not hurting other people is the foundation of being a good person. It's obvious though that this wasn't always the case. In bygone eras things like treason, betrayal, and ideological impurity were regarded as the highest crimes and people seemed to have a very blithe attitude towards human suffering.

In the middle ages, even someone who was regarded as enlightened, like Thomas Moore, endorsed burning at the stake for heresy.

So what changed? How did we come to start taking human pain so seriously when just a few centuries ago torture didn't seem to be much of a big deal?

One of the things that united Europeans against the Ottomans was the fact that they were muslims and the Europeans were predominantly Christian, were there any significant alliances made between the Mughals and Ottomans or the Persians? If not how come. I know the Persians and Ottomans often came into conflict but surely the Persians would be far more useful as allies.

I'm not even sure the government can freely issue a draft even in a legitimate wartime, so how can the government issue a draft in a peacetime? Does any of the Vietnam War protesters raise this issue? Does any draft dodgers cite this as their reason of refusal?

Additionally, if there had already been an Athenian-Spartan war, what made the Peloponnesian War proper so important for Thucydides?

Why were barbarians so influential in the late Western Roman Empire's military-political sphere and was this a symptom of a larger weakness? So not 'how,' necessarily, but 'why.' Was the situation similar in the East? Why did people descended from tribes not subjugated by Rome gain so much influence? And if my premise is correct, why hadn't they done so earlier? Why no generals of 'Celtic' origin, for example?

i don't know if this is right place to ask? But why we call some countries Fatherlands like Finland and Serbia or Motherlands like Mother Russia?

Are there any documented Native American voyages like "Lewis and Clark"?

[deleted]

How old was Julius Caesar when he was reported to have wept over Alexander's accomplishments in Spain? Was it true that he did this in font of the statue or while reading a biography? Alexander died at 28 right? Thanks!

So, when Caesar read about Alexander’s life, he burst into tears. Perhaps the more ambitious of us ought to cry with him.

“His friends were surprised, and asked him the reason of it. ‘Do you think,’ said he, ‘I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?’”

Although women heads of state are not so rare in democracies nowdays, in the 60's they were the exception. And even today India makes the headlines with religious norms conflicting with women's rights.

So was Indira Ghandi's gender an issue during her term as prime minister? And did her time in political office signify any shift in gender relations in India?

Today, military units always march in tact, but for how long has this been standard? For example, would roman army units have marched in tact or did it start in the 1700s?

Edit: marching in step is what i mean with "in tact", sorry for not using the proper word.

For some reason I cannot seem to post a picture here but it's a shoulder patch. Top half is white and lower half is red. To be honest it looks like a Polish flag with a big black A in front of it. Any help identifying would be nice.

Is this even a fair question to ask? This seems to be a debated topic, or maybe I'm just ignorant on facts. If you ask me, I blame Serbia. If not I'd go to Austria-Hungary. I could also see basically everyone being blamed, as all countries seem to have piggy-back'd with their allies. If anyone's curious, I'm in a debate with my friend who blames Germany for the cause of WW1. Thank you for your responses.

Christianity for a long time after it was adopted by the Romans as the official religion of Rome was influenced by the rich and nobility, so I was wondering when and why religious figures were depicted with facial hair?

Dear community,

Lately I've been fascinated with Jean Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683) a French politician who worked for King Louis XIV.
The problem is that the amount of information available on him is limited (especially online). Are there any sources that you would recommend?

There are literally hundreds of useful but often contradictory analytical techniques across different sectors for analysing complex things. In particular (from my own professional experience) public policy evaluation , intelligence analysis, public health/social care , business analysis etc. All lend themselves to analysing broad things like "impact" and "cause and effect" as well as more operational stuff. All have many things i think might be useful in post grad study of history. All have a tendancy to quantify qualitative information, build models and compare things against those models, and simplify complex things.

For an example would using modern cost benefit analysis from public policy and public health be an interesting way of analysing the impact of historical events or policies? As well as using things like building models and indexes to compare different things? Or using modern business analysis to analyse organisational culture etc?

Do historians pick techniques from other areas to assist in their work? And if not, what are the reasons they dont?