I know monks were often the primary copiers of books in Europe, so curious if there were any changes once that was no longer necessary.

The Roman historians on here have presented a pretty complex picture of labor in Ancient Rome [mostly talking about the Principate if memory serves]; the urban poor living a semi-migratory life, chasing day-labor through the city*, while large agricultural estates hired large numbers of free laborers during harvest time, when more hands were needed, with slaves serving as the continuous baseline to maintain the estate.

So my question is, was there much overlap between the day-laboring urban poor of Rome and the hired laborers working agricultural estates during harvest time? If not, where did they come from?

Also, regarding agriculture in Roman Italy, is there any evidence to say relatively how much land was held by large estates compared to 'yeomen', and what role tenant farmers played in the picture?

*I'd also be interesting in seeing if there's any evidence to indicate this (or any of the questions above) was widespread through the Mediterranean world, or something unique to Rome.

My understanding is that other organs have been associated with consciousness and emotion in early society, leading to the ideas like love's association with the heart

Since the Hammer and Sickle was designed nearly a generation after his death, what would he have seen as representing Communism in posters, pictures, banners, and even graffiti?

Is Troy considered a part of the ancient Greek world? Were the Trojans ethnically Greek?

I know there isn't a universal answer here, but I'm just looking for other people's perspectives. For the record, I'm currently an undergrad in philosophy, but I've always been interested in history and have several friends whose majors are history.

If not, could you direct me to competing epistemological historical methodology.

I was observing that throughout post-war elections till the early 90s in Italy, Emilia-Romagna seemed to lean heavily towards the Communist Party of Italy and Veneto heavily towards the Christian Democrats.Why was this the case? Were there similar patterns before as well?

International laws outlawing genocide and racial crimes were written by the newly formed UN after WWII precisely in order to prevent another Holcaust, right? Then under what charges were Nazi leaders sentences for their crimes during the war? Had the League of Nations passed similar laws before 1939?

I am talking about how, in the medival times, everything was controlled by Kings. But when and how did it stop?

Was gambeson more effective than I thought? Was plate or maille cheaper than I thought? Do most arrows hit the head (helmets were quite common I think relative to other armour)? Was the reach advantage just so damn good over everything else it didn't matter? Pls help

I am very interested in this specific question, but if someone could refer me to reliable sources about historicity of the bible in general, that would be a great addition.

I've seen this from several sources, that when the war started turning against them, the Nazis accelerated the killing.

First, is this true, and second, why? The infrastructure and manpower required to exterminate a race isn't exactly a line item. That's a huge amount of effort and planning and logistics and people and ... moving parts, that all could probably have been better spent trying not to lose the war.

I've seen some explanations (that I perhaps just didn't really grok) that the leadership believed that it was the Jews who were (perhaps just 'behind') the opposing sides in the war, and that if they just managed to kill all of them... What? The war would end? Victory?

That seems... irrational. I can buy that someone thought that, maybe even a few people, but surely there was someone in Nazi leadership who realized that was completely stupid?

Was this some insane sacrifice? Like, we'll all die, but if we manage to take down the entirety of the jewish race with us, the survivors will be able to complete our grand destiny?

Was someone trying to "hide the evidence" of the holocaust by killing all the witnesses?

What was the thinking behind diverting resources away from the war, towards killing a lot people who were not a threat?

I’ve heard some ridiculous statements from people saying, usually sarcastically, that we should’ve annexed all of Mexico. Well, once it was clear, with the successful capture of Mexico City in 1847, that the Mexico had lost the war, was there any serious discussion in the US government or media to actually annex all of Mexico, and not just its northern territories like California and the Southwest? If so, what were the primary discussion points that were pro-all-annexation and pro-anti-all-annexation?

[deleted]

Is there a difference in symbolic meaning between the two representations? Is there a point at which it definitively became one-headed?