When reading anything by Homer I never got the impression that the Trojans are viewed as barbarians. However when reading authors who happen to be chronologically later, like Aeschylus and Euripides, there are instances of the Trojans being referred to as barbarians and Asians.

What is the fact of the matter here? Does the answer depend on what time period you are talking about? Do they consider them barbarians in the technical sense of “non-Greeks” but without the negative connotation that might be used with other, more unrelated, peoples?

I was reading Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations" and he mentions Zeus. I was surprised by this since Zeus is a Greek god and Aurelius was a Roman emperor. Why wouldn't he use Jupiter, a Roman god, instead? Thank you in advance for your answers.

He argues that the dysfunctional nature of the British monarchy in the 17th century caused it to overlook people claiming private right to land. Then, when the Glorious Revolution occurred, these new landowners secured their right to do so. This, he argued, spurred settler capitalism into prominence as the new constitutional monarchy looked for new lands from which to profit.

I know very little about Renaissance-era British history and I'm interested to know if this idea holds water. I should also note that this part of the course was part of one lesson, and the course itself was not focused on British history.

I find this hard to understand especially because Latin itself has little to do with the origins of Christianity and was originally adopted precisely to make the liturgy understandable to western Romans. So, once people didn't understand it anymore, why did it linger until about 50 years ago?

So this is kind of a Theseus' ship (or rather Theseus' caldron) thing. A single pot of soup or stew that was constantly being revitalized with new ingredients but kept going to concentrate flavour. But I can't find any other sources who support the claim.

Is anyone aware of such a perpetual stew ? And how didn't people die of food poisoning? Cooking kills off 99% of bacteria but that 1% that's resistant keeps multiplying right?

Japan is an island nation, so how much fish was the average person eating during the ban? Was fish affordable for peasants?

The ban was based on Buddhist doctrine. Was there a reason fish were categorized as different than land animals?

Did the nobility not hunt in Japan or keep livestock like European nobility?

How were transgressors against the ban punished?

Was the emperor secretly sneaking steaks?

Anybody here got good scholarly works I can read. Recently got interested in this topic, but I am not knowledgeable in it.

How could a member of the LGBT community expect to be treated in the Old West. What was the overall attitude of the time and place? If known how would they locate one another?

This is not a comment on gender/non-binary people ect, those identities and validity have nothing to do with this conversation

Many people talk about pre-European contact ‘third genders’, such as two-spirit which are suggested to be similar to modern ‘non-binary’ labels.

However, when I began to look at primary sources and other people’s interpretations, many seem to be boys wearing women’s clothing performing sexual favours for older men that would probably be considered as sexual abuse in modern society. This seems to be backed up by the fact that all examples (I’ve found) don’t include people who are biologically female.

Can anyone confirm or deny this (my research has been limited) and possibly link to other primary sources?

Specifically, I’m looking at two-spirit, hijra, quariwarmi, xochihua and any other examples you can give.

Last night I went to dinner at my favorite tiki bar. They serve some delightful Hawaiian food that is a fusion of all the cultures that have called Hawaii home over the last 400 years. Next to my Katsu chicken was a good serving of kimchi. It was spicy and sour and delightful. But it got me thinking, how did it get there? I know chili came to Europe and Asia through the Columbian exchange, but what is Korea’s story? In my mind Korea is an exceptionally remote bit of Asia because of its location on an archipelago. Did this have an impact on how chili and other American plants got to them? Or were they more open and accessible to traders than pop history articles have led me to believe?

During each crusades, plenty of knights who participated presumably went on long journeys by land or sea, visiting places and coming across different peoples they may have never seen before, what kind of accounts did the crusaders record? How did they compare places like Constantinople or Hungary to their homelands of e.g France? Was this journey purely a march to Palestine or did they have the time to experience these new lands? Did they have fun? Were there any who were satisfied with where they ended up and never completed the journey?

Given the vastness of the Roman Empire at that point, and the military might it could bring to bear, it seems that Gothic leaders such as Radagaisus made a strange decision jumping from the frying pan of Huns to the fire of the Romans. I know much less about Germania’s network of tribes, but I’m certain that their military might would have been orders of magnitude less powerful than that of the Romans - why not go there rather than going after the bully on the block?

I have been reading online about it. But everything just goes over to the UK borrowing from the US. Which isn't really the part I'm trying to learn, or at least, it's missing the other half.

It says in some places that Britain largely funded the other allies throughout the war, but after 1916 it had to be done through heavy borrowing.

Then the final question, how much did Russia leaving the war cost Britain, as they no longer paid there debts, I have seen in some places, that allies being unable to pay, or just refusing to, is what lead to the UK suffering so badly in the post war world.

How true are these? And what more is there to know?

When we think about human civilizations through out time we often laugh or gawk at their religious beliefs for being extremely unrealistic. Ancient Greece mythology is a perfect example, but of course there have been countless others through out human history. I'm curious if and/or when, the popular religions of today such as Christianity, Catholicism, Mormon, or Islam will some day become mythology of the 20th and early 21st century. Or are these main religious groups here to stay for the long run.

Sorry for the long title. Also, I’m not trying to talk down on anyone’s religious beliefs. If you believe that Jesus really was resurrected, I won’t argue with you.

That being said, I want to explore an alternate view. My understanding is that the consensus among historians is that Jesus was a real person, who probably had some teachings that challenged the religious establishment at that time, and was probably put to death at some point.

So what happens after? If Jesus dies and stays dead, how/why do so many people become part of this explosive new religion, under the impression that he was indeed raised up? Was it a coordinated lie/coverup? By who? The apostles? If they were real, it had to have been them, because they wouldn’t have been fooled by a lookalike or by tall tales by random people. But then, why would they subject themselves to the kind of persecution and martyrdom that was common in the early days of Christianity over something they knew they made up?

This leads me to a lot of other questions. As far as I know from my Christian upbringing, when it comes to “authors” of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude and Peter all supposedly knew Jesus intimately for years. Paul never met him but was a contemporary of the other seven. But is that true? Is there any historical or archaeological reason to believe that they really existed and wrote the gospels?

Once again, I’m sorry for the length. I know I’ve probably asked a very controversial question. I have probably asked a lot of additional questions that merit a response of their own. But if someone could at least point me in the right direction, I would be very grateful.

I've heard and read that people in the middle ages in Europe (and other people and in other times) relied on alcoholic beverages as a safe source of water because of the antimicrobial property of alcohol. I've also heard (and experienced) that alcohol is dehydrating. The lower the concentration of alcohol in a beverage the more hydrating the beverage is. The higher the concentration of alcohol in a beverage the more safe (from infection) the beverage is.

So that makes me assume that ancient people straddled the balance point between safety from infection and hydration.

What proof alcohol were these people drinking?

Would they also drink cooked sources of non-alcoholic water; teas, soups, plain boiled water, etc?

Thanks!

What does, for instance, Liu Bei conquering hundreds of thousands of square kilometers in Sichuan in only a few years actually mean for your average peasant farmer? Would they even notice?