Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges also claims that the broadening of the Greek and Romans' ideas of god from something domestic and family/city-specific to something that had dominion over all men, and the transition away from worship of the sacred fire, was propelled by a "strengthening of the mind."

Someone from the year 1900 might say something like "Pardon me, gracious sir" for example.

How did everyday people on the street act towards each other on a daily basis in say, 1700, 1800, 1900, 1950 ect...?

How well does Netflix's 'the Who Was show' get actual facts across? Would it be a good tool in getting people more interested in history or are these short out of context stories just plain misinformation?

So if two warriors were fighting each other in the midst of battle, would it be seen as improper to stab one in the back rather than letting the duel play itself out?

I was reading up on subsaraha Africa and came across suggested theories that the Mali Empire could have reached the Americas and had some influence in it, how true are these claims and to what extent did the Malians actually explore the Atlantic?

I have read this in an essay but cannot find the source of this claim. If someone can provide insight and provide a source it would be helpful

I love my country and the fact that I´m Iberian and everything but it just pains me that whenever I look up anything about the pre-roman history of the Iberians there´s so little. I´m not sure if this is the place to ask this but I ask this more because I don´t know if it´s just that I´m not looking in the right places or if the Iberians didn´t leave a lot of relics of their past or if they were destroyed by the Romans, Moors and Visigoths.

There´s so much known about the celtic gods and the culture of the Irish people and how they were able to revive their roots after being repressed for so long but there isn´t a lot known about the celtiberian or iberian gods. I´m not a Pagan but I´ve always found ancient european religions to be very beautiful and to be innocent and more focused on the earth and it´s people than death.

Again sorry if this isn´t the appropriate place to ask this. I´ve tried looking at books in Amazon and websites but there aren´t any books on ancient iberian pre-roman history. And I´m aware that there isn´t too much known but I´m not sure of the extent of how little we know about them

Or, why did Europe suddenly decide that most of Africa was going to be colonized in the 1800s?

[deleted]

How did the allied command get messages to German command. For instance the message 'Nuts' during the battle of Bastogne. I'd think there weren't any direct communication lines between the factions.

I cant find any references to Pre-Columbian Meso Americans eating anything other than unsweetened chocolate.

Is that the case?

I know they had honey, sugar, agave, etc. Plenty of sweeteners to use and they just..never added it to the bitter chocolate? seems unreal to me.

The history of chocolate begins in Mesoamerica. Fermented beverages made from chocolate date back to 350 BC.[1] The Aztecs believed that cacao seeds were the gift of Quetzalcoatl, the god of wisdom, and the seeds once had so much value that they were used as a form of currency. Originally prepared only as a drink, chocolate was served as a bitter, from a liquid, mixed with spices or corn puree. It was believed to have aphrodisiac powers and to give the drinker strength. Today, such drinks are also known as "Chilate" and are made by locals in the South of Mexico.

After its arrival to Europe in the sixteenth century, sugar was added to it, rendering it an aphrodisiac, and it became popular throughout society, first among the ruling classes and then among the common people. In the 20th century, chocolate was considered essential in the rations of United States soldiers at war.[2]

[On why the crusade failed] 'There is a third reason why the lord allowed it. We read in genesis that the Lord said to Abraham, "Now I know" (that is, I have caused you and others to know) "that thou fearest God hast not spared thine only-begotten son on my account.' In this fashion the Lord, through that affair, caused the aforesaid nobles and other Christians to know that these nobles feared God, by the fact that they did not spare their sons, wives or other dear ones, leaving them behind exposed, as it were, to any enemies they had. But neither did they spare themselves or certain of their dear ones besides, whom they had taken with them, exposing themselves and [these others] to death.'

I'm not really sure what this passage is trying to get at. My assumption is that because the crusaders left their loved ones (who they are supposed to protect) behind, they left them exposed to death (which I suppose is sin worthy?). Other nobles brought their loved ones with them, also exposed them to death, which is also sin worthy, meaning that the crusade failed?

It doesn't make much sense to me but if someone could elucidate I would be grateful

Book- The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254, The Reaction to Failure, page 171

They referenced it as 'Sermon on the anniversary of Robert, Count of Artois, and of other nobles who were killed by the Saracens at Mansura in Egypt' [1251?]: Penny J Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095-1270 pp. 235-9

The stereotype is that it was relatively easy for someone in the 1950s or 60s to get a job that sustained a living. As the US is I think getting out of the "great recession", how comparatively hard is it for an average adult now to get a job that gives them comparable wages? I feel like perhaps perceptions of that time period are colored by nostalgia, feelings about the great recession, and perhaps, a failure to account for women, minorities, and certain other groups of that time. But I also feel like broadly the premise is right.

I was looking for information on that topic and I can't find any mentions of US involvement. What is the reason of that? It appears to have been quite a significant anti-communist conflict that happened during the Cold War era. Moreover, the insurgents were supported by China and the Soviet Union. Britain helped the US in Korea and Vietnam but the US didn't help Britain in Malaya?

[deleted]