The phrase 'salting the earth' used to refer to an action which is needlessly vengeful... I believe that it dates back to ancient times when armies would salt the earth of conquered cities to prevent crops from growing there again (along with other things such as burning, pillaging, raping, sewing seeds of thorny plants (Thanks Dan!)).

However, it seems unlikely to me as salt is somewhat valuable and I'm not sure where they would have obtained such large quantities of the stuff to actually poison the soil.

I would like to know how common the practice was in ancient times and why it was practiced?

After reading the rules roundtables on Wikipedia, I don't want to use it for casual reading anymore. At the same time I don't know of good alternatives. I'm looking for something very casual. Britannica online can be good, but it is often just a brief sketch of a topic.

Edit: I wont reply to everyone individually, but I really appreciate the responses and suggestions for other sources.

At the time, Edward VIII marrying a twice-divorced commoner was seen as morally unacceptable by the English church and public, as the King served as the head of the Church of England. If that is the case, then why were several of Edward's predecessors, such as his grandfather Edward VII, who had numerous affairs with mistresses, or William IV, who had ten children out of wedlock, allowed to become/remain King? Why was remarriage after divorce such an issue while adultery and having illegitimate children was not?

[deleted]

Most of the time when people talk about the voyages of Zheng He they tend to interpret the voyages as either a direct analog to contemporary European exploration, or as some sort of morality tale of an outward looking China falling into isolation and stagnation. This always irritates me a little. First, of course, because it seems to be interpreting history mainly as a morality tale for more modern issues (e.g. eurocentrism, globalization, etc.). But more importantly, it seems like these interpretations overlook a far more parsimonious explanation for the whole project: Zheng He's voyages weren't about exploration or opening trade routes or even projecting China's power outwards. Rather, they were more about conferring legitimacy on the Yongle Emperor.

This would fit the context very nicely. The Yongle emperor had come to power in a coup, and that fact alone meant that he always had to deal with a serious challenge to his legitimacy. This was all the more the case because the emperor he overthrew, the Jianwen emperor, seemed to have been groomed more or less specifically for the purpose of establishing a legitimate line of succession for the Ming dynasty (right down to the name). And while, by and large, the Yongle emperor's position was secure, we know there were real consequences to this crisis of legitimacy. We know, for example, that many of the prominent Neo-Confucian scholars of the day either rejected the Yongle emperor or had to tie themselves into pretzels to accept his legitimacy. And we know that the Yongle emperor's rule was typified by a pretty strict regime of censorship aimed at stamping out such criticisms. There's even a rumor that Zheng He's voyages themselves were just a giant manhunt to find the (still alive) Jianwen emperor, and while these rumors are almost certainly false they do speak to the general theme of a ruler who needed to take extraordinary steps to secure his position.

In that context, a big symbolic gesture like sending a massive fleet to the ends of the earth to get tribute from as many people as possible would make a lot of sense. Not because establishing such tributary relations or establishing control over the Indian Sea trade were ever practical ends in and of themselves, but rather because doing so would prove to everyone that yes, indeed the Yongle emperor really was the rightful ruler after all.

But I haven't seen much in terms of historical analyses that look at the voyages from that angle. Does anyone have any insights into this issue?

[deleted]

I was recently watching a YouTube video from Because Science where the host, Kyle Hill, discussed the differences between scientists and science communicators. Science communicators like Kyle Hill and Bill Nye aren’t scientists like theoretical physicists or chemists,but their job is to take scientific concepts, theories, and principle that scientists have researched or discovered, and present them in understandable, relatable, and comprehensible ways for people who are not scientists.

My question being; is there a similar position/concept in the field of historical academia!

Follow up; if there is not, would such a position be beneficial or of value to the historical community in the sense that it can get more people interested in history?

(I.e I like watching the YouTube channel Extra History and it has often made me want to go out and do more research on the historical subjects they bring up. Would more stuff like this be beneficial?)

I understand the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot applied one of the most massive anti-intellectual killings (supposedly even killing people who wore glasses because that suggested literacy) in modern history. Was the only reason for these killings to silence dissent and potential major rebel groups, or were there other less spoken reasons as well?

Akin to that question, what were the major consequences of these killings, beside the obvious? Did the higher ups in Pol Pot's regime have their own professional doctors or did they run into the Stalin-esque issue of not having anyone to treat them because they killed off the real/good doctors? Did the country during the Khmer Rouge reign suffer consequences other than less/no education and poorer health due to the lack of intellectuals?

How was Asperger's/Autism treated in those decades? Was it stigmatized? There wasn't an understanding of it in those decades, at least not like today. Can you tell me in great detail?

In particular, would a triarius or cavalry trooper come from an aristocratic background, or did they just have the kind of wealth that comes from saving income over a long military career?

At the end of a day would a Triarius and Hastatus, for example, fraternize, roll dice, get drunk together, etc? Or was the social division great enough that they kept to different groups within military camp life?

I know Switzerland was neutral in WW2 and it was seen as a “safe” zone for some minority’s persecuted in Germany, but my schools never went into detail on why the Nazi’s never invaded. Details?

5 of the 10 deadliest wars were in a China. Most of them were before the booms. Why was it that such high levels of their populations used to die on the wars? Most wars in Europe had average death tolls of at most 3 million. But why did China have death tolls like 30 million, 20 million and so on?

What rough % of the Highlands supported the wars with each attempt, did some who were active in 19 stay out for memory of losses suffered, or some who had been on the sideline decide to join up in 45?

If any were supportive still of George I and then II during the risings did they suffer attacks during and after or in turn take revenge on their rebellious neighbors or was the divide mostly between the Highlands and Lowlands instead?

In Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Fredici we can read about how women who were accused of being witches were targeted because of their reproductive freedom. How true is it that witches were independent women with that promoted reproductive freedom?

[deleted]

I read that Spanish missionaries and modern media could have fabricated the goddess Ixtab, and that her cult never existed among ancient Maya. To me it seems a very specific dominion for a goddess (suicide by hanging). In case her following existed, did the Maya have other gods for different forms of suicide?

How did the two interact?

I've heard this accusation a lot but I'm not really sure what it means/if it's true/how true it is.