I realize via looking it up in the dictionary that dropsy is an antiquated term for edema, which is swelling. But as a 21st century person, I've never heard of anyone either dying of edema or being so swollen up that it's a ubiquitous medical problem. Though I realize edema can be a symptom of a larger illness, for example I had it when I had pre-eclampsia during my pregnancy.

Why were people once so commonly swollen up that they needed a special word for it?

Hello, I have run along a supposed quote from the English Parliament to Owain Glyndwr, and was curious about whether is was ever actually said. The quote being "What care we for these barefoot rascals?". I have been trying to find an origin for the quote, but the best I get is a quote from an old TV show "Battlefield Brittan".

While there isn't a norm on women being forbidden from leaving the house, even Ancient Sparta seemed not to have their women in the Assemblies and Councils. Why? Does it have something to do with the "Man represents the whole Oikos" or something like that? I thought the sons of a citizen also could exercise their rights even when leaving with their fathers (though maybe the age bar played a part here)

And I know Athens was highly misogynist but I don't understand how then the women can be citizens as much as men and yet being barred from political power, other than priestesses.

It's easy to point to specific things in the history of christianity to argue that the religion was closed minded, sexist, etc. You have the inquisitions, witch/pagan burning, general disenfranchisement of women, etc.

But, for most of western history all of society was kind of like this, right? Women had few rights, nonconformity was punished, etc. So, how fair is it to blame the church, or religious doctrine, vs. just saying that religious doctrine reflected the wider social views of the time? I know it's hard to compare religious and secular views in a vacuum from each other, but do we have any instances of society pushing religion to be more closed minded or vice versa? Or, instances of equality/oppression that existed in the religious or secular sphere but not the other?

Couldn't find much info about the topic, so I decided to ask here.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I've heard some people said that the M4 Sherman (and by extension the Grant/Lee) was tall due to the use of the radial Continental R-975 engine, which had a large circular cross-section. But I've also come to notice that the much shorter M18 Hellcat also used the very same engine.

Another pattern that I also noticed is, tanks with rotating turret basket/floor of the era like the panther also had similar height to the sherman (which had a rotating turret floor/basket), and the t23/25/26 prototypes had to forgo turret basket to achieve the same height as the T-34 series which lacked turret basket from the onset. And when the later Patton series tanks received their turret basket, their height went back to the towering 10ft/3m, around the same as the Shermans and Panthers, much taller than their t25/26 predecessor.s

So is it true that the Sherman was tall because of the radial engine? Or was it due to the use of rotating turret basket/floor instead?

I’ve seen a lot of people say how Cleopatra was promiscuous, and I’ve seen cravings suggesting that she was cross dressing at times. My question is, was Cleopatra bisexual?

Is there anywhere where I could look up how much land a noble landholder held? In books you often find descriptions like "Warwick held several manors and increased his land through adding the Beaumont-estates" but I would like to know what exactly that means.

Thanks in advance for anwers!

As I understand it, the primary aim of the Gallipoli campaign was to secure passage for Russian and Western Allied ships through the Sea of Marmara from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. In comparison to the straits at Gallipoli, trying to secure passage through the Bosphorus seems almost impossible, given that the straits are surrounded by one of Europe's biggest cities, which was also the seat of power of an opposing empire.

I've loved studying history for as long as I can remember, and if I could I would enjoy majoring in history in college someday with the hopes of a career in it.

At the end of the day, I know history is important - studying it, being aware of it, discussing it, etc. But when I asked myself why is it important, I realized I didn't have an eloquent answer prepared, and I wouldn't know what to tell someone if they asked me beyond a one line answer of "Well, it teaches us about where we came from and how we got there and where we're going."

I know I study it because I'm passionate about it, because I delight in learning how people lived hundreds of years ago, what society was like, and how we got here.

But beyond that, or to elaborate on that, why is it important that, perhaps, at least the general population has a base knowledge of history, if not why it's important for specialized historians (and any job that relates to history) to exist?

[deleted]

Hi, after reading a book about the battle of Verdun, many questions have been circling in my head. When the Germans attacked, did they tell France that they were gonna attack? Is there a just war or war principle that regulates this? And which nation do you think broke the must just war principles and why? I am very much interested in this

I am doing some research on the chalcolithic to the early iron age and I wondered how much knowledge people in the copper age, bronze age, and early iron age might have of neighboring regions? Would someone in the Balkans have heard anything about the kingdoms and states forming in Mesopotamia? Would there be consistent trade between these regions? What about somewhere further afield such as Iberia, Central Asia, or the British Isles?