How did one become a priest in the Roman Empire? I’ve read plenty of accounts of how elite members of society acquired religious roles within Rome, but not where the priests for more remote temples came from. For example, in Britain there was a Temple to Claudius in Colchester and a Temple to Sulis Miverva in Bath. Were priests in this temples appointed from local officials? If so, who appointed them? If not, where did they come from?

As a follow up question, do we know how much contact there was between temples? Were all temples to Jupiter in touch with each other? Was there any sort of centralisation, or was each temple pretty much it’s own thing?

Thanks in advance.

I've been on AH for a number of years now and have seen references to some mildly popular books. However, I've also seen references to what appear to be very niche books where I suspect the prints number in the single-digit thousands. Maybe some of these are used as ancillary texts in history courses, which could boost their numbers, but most of them are certainly nowhere near the New York Times Best Sellers lists (and, frankly, those that do make that list rarely make the suggested reading lists here).

Unfortunately, I haven't been keeping notes for actual titles, but some semi-realistic example titles might be The Evolution of English Frigates from 1650 to 1832 or Dutch Politics During the Eighty Years' War. For certain corners, these are very important topics, but I struggle to understand the economics of an entire book versus a series of papers.

I ask this in comparison to papers, which are conventionally much shorter but, of course, tend to focus on more narrow questions. Looking at the above pseudo-titles, some papers might include "Evolution of structural frames in English frigates from 1650 to 1700" or "Gradual Catholicism: How Alexander Farese blunted the Spanish efforts to hold The Netherlands." (These are taken from Wikipedia entries but seem realistic.)

What makes an historian sit down and write an entire book, and a publisher agree to put ink to paper, for what appear to be very narrow topics? Is the historical book market bigger than it seems, do publishers take the risk on narrow or negative margins, or is there some other factor involved?

I am a huge fan of native European religions, and have been starting to read Ronald Hutton on the subject.

I know the accepted pop history is that our current Easter celebration (bunnies, eggs, etc) is all taken from pagan equinox festivals. But actually looking into it, seems all we have is a single reference to Eostre by Bede.

So where the heck does all the rabbits and egg stuff come from?

Titles a bit crude so let me clarify.

Apparently there was a moral panic about white people being enslaved around the 1920s and 30s, back when the Ottoman Empire was big and strong (IIRC), so they passed a law called the “White slave act” or Mann Act which was meant to fight that by outlawing the transport of women and girls for immoral purposes.

I plan on doing more research but based on the following it feels like there’s a racist agenda here, to put it bluntly. Since the two most significant uses of this law was to wrongfully accuse an innocent black person of raping a white woman.

First of all Jack Johnson, the American Boxer who suffered legally and financially because the law was invoked to present the relationship he had with his (White) wife as immoral and slavery with no attempt at provide evidence beyond “He’s black and she’s white”.

The other case, the Scottsboro boys, were accused by two white women of rape on a train, but long after they’re locked in jail for life, on it’s revealed these women were up and accosting black men for sex that train, and asking about their penises. After other white people realized, these two decided to accuse the boys because they were afraid the Mann act would be invoked on them.

Why would they be afraid of the Mann act being invoked on them if the law was passed specifically to protect them? The law does nothing to prohibit miscegenation or whites interacting with blacks.

I hope I’m completely wrong on this and there’s more to this law, but this has made me feel uncomfortable and is like to know more. Was there some kind of white supremacist agenda?

And a follow up question, did it just apply to white women or all women, in the way it’s meant to be used at least?

One thing I've learned from this subreddit is that surface-level technological change comes about not just because of research, i.e. new knowledge, but because of social, cultural and economic conditions making that change feasible to introduce and supplant other technologies. Though I don't know if I've seen it explicitly argued here, that understanding has encouraged me to see political and structural changes in power relationships, similarly, as more than just a result of technology; social, cultural and economic conditions have to combine to make those changes possible. So while I was reading recently about the specifics of Columbus' return from Hispaniola in 1493 and Cabot's return from the mainland afew years later, I began to wonder what conditions exactly he returned to. What prompted other Europeans to accept news of a sea route, supposedly to Asia, but eventually, as it turned out, to another continent? What made them want to do something with this knowledge? I'm aware that the desire to find a trade route to Asia emerged because the Ottomans' 1453 capture of Constantinople cut off the land route, and I know that the Portuguese had already sort of set up "practice" colonies in the Canaries and the Azores, making them "ready" — but why did these become issues of importance to Europeans in 1500 in a way that they had not been in 1000?

In his book, The Decline and Rise of Democracy, David Stasavage states that: "Anglo-Saxon England was the sole state in Europe - apart from the areas under Muslim control - that levied a direct and kingdom-wide tax on agricultural produce. The immediate stimulus for this was the need to pay the Danegeld." What about the Anglo-Saxon state enabled it to levy this tax and how did that differ from continental states?

I am aware, of course, of the debated cognitive state of US President Reagan prior to his Alzheimers diagnosis. I am also aware of Woodrow Wilson's stroke, which left his Wife to manage many of his affairs. However, I am interested in the suggestion in some writing in recent years that the Senate has seen a number of serving members continuing in Office, guided by Staffers, well beyond the decline of their capabilities. I would like to know if this phenomenon has been recorded on the historical record.

In other words: is there any reason to believe that this glyph’s presence points to anything more significant than one 15th century Eastern European guy’s handwriting quirks?

It seems as though the other big three successor khanates of the mongol empire has a tendency to “go native”/assimilate to those they conquered, but for some reason, it seems that the Golden Horde is for the most part the only exceptions overall. Is there a reason or reasons that the Golden Horde never Russified?

I apologize if my question phrasing seems a bit odd but I was struggling to find a way to verbalize it. What I mean is, if only those who died in battle went to Valhalla--obviously the most prestigious afterlife--and everyone else (e.g. those who died of old age, sickness, suicide, or other natural causes) went to Helheim, which seems a much less desirable place to retire to than the former, would mortality rates reflect that?

What incentive in the next life would one have to live out their old age if you would be what seems to be a shade in the mists for the rest of time?

As we all know, the persians converted the turks to islam but persians were shia muslim and turks are sunni.

I’m talking about western oğhuz turks

Just looking for some information regarding how many of each role (Lieutenants, Coxswains, Seamen, Marines, etc.) would have served on a 5th Rate Frigate in the 17th/18th Century. Any help appreciated!

The overall question I have is simply, how did NATO decide to standardize on 7.62.51mm NATO?

The more specific question is, my understanding is that .30-06 Springfield and 7.62 NATO have roughly similar (though not identical) ballistic performance, so I'm curious if the U.S., who had significant amounts of .30-06 ammunition and weapons, was annoyed that NATO standardized on a round with very similar performance that would require them to acquire new weapons and ammunition?

​

Is my understanding of the similarities in performance just wrong, and the differences are more pronounced than I currently know? Are there engineering and weapon design differences? Something else?

I heard that claim recently, and it sounds interesting. But as everything pertaining to pirates, it's hard to see what is fantasy, what is propaganda, and what is truth.

I'm currently in process of writing a story based in the pagan Prussians that populated Prussia before (and during) the crusades against them, and I was wondering what sources and methods you historians have so I can get more information on the topic. What I'm most interested in knowing is their social structure, their beliefs, how their villages looked like and worked, how their people looked like, and other historical facts that would help me build a world based on east Prussia during the 13th century.

The spanish colonial population was a combination of natives, colonists and the mix between them.

In contrast, USA, Canada and Australia forced the removal of natives (indians) and eventually give them "reservations", avoiding the mix of the population.

Nowadays, you can easily see the native traits in most of the population in spanish America while in the North (and Australia) there has been a ethnic cleansing.

What were the reasons for Spain to mix and for the english to avoid mixing?

(English not first language, sorry)