European doctors in the medieval era are always seen as lunatics who think every medical problem could be solved by a paste of various plants and leeches, and a healthy dose of physical pain.

What sources and texts were these doctors learning these practices from? Have any been discovered? Were these stereotypical practices considered actual medical knowledge, or a sham?

Given that Poland was still under Soviet control upon his coming to power, did Soviet leadership perceive him as a threat? He was very popular in Poland, so were they worried he might somehow cause Poland to break away from the USSR?

Although I am unfamiliar with present-day academia, it seems to me that there is a somewhat general consensus that religion and myth, at their core, serve as a guide for the individual to help traverse the different kinds of psychological dangers one might encounter throughout one's life, and as a means by which to illustrate how to properly exist within one's own society.

As modern, "enlightened" individuals, this realisation comes natural to us, because we have an idea of how our world functions.

So my question is: do we have any idea of the way people perceived religion in a time where such information was not yet known, or at the least not readily available?

Thanks in advance!

• Where there any places/islands that were deemed popular for selling animals?

• what were the most common and the rarest animals on the market?

• were exotic animals won as prizes from games? (i.e. some sort of board games? If any existed at the time?)

I was listening to two history buffs argue about this. One of them arguing for religion said something about a medieval mindset of religion could someone explain. Also the different motives Pope Urban II vs. Peter the Hermit for example. Overall which would be the bigger motivator and why?

Hi, i'm an amature weapons historian and I resently heard some thing that i can't find any information on. A friend of me tild me that military matchlock muskets were more powerfull than the later flintlock musket due to the fact that the earlier had to penetrate plate armour, when plate armour was faced out the power of these muskets became eccesive and they were made less power in favor of mobility. I knew that the reason for flintlock muskets being lighter had to do with improved metalurgy but this sounds like it also could something to do with it. Has anyone else heard something simmelar or have any sources that proves/disproves this theory? Thank you beforehand and sorry for the spelling errors, i'm dyslexic and english is my second language.

Recently I have developed a big interest in the diplomatics of war. I read the many declarations of war between nations during the world wars and they are all very formal notices of because this and that your country is now in a state of war with ours. The notes are typically handed over by an ambassador.

How did this happen during the medieval times?

I had previously believed that the antisemitism was a relatively new thing to the western world during the events of World War 2, and that those kinds of beliefs didn't really manifest themselves in powerful ways before then anywhere other than the middle east/near Israel. Today I learned about how Martin Luther was a pretty avid jew-hater, and heard some choice quotes of his, which has opened my eyes to the prevalence of the viewpoint that I hadn't known about.

My question is this: where did these antisemitic views come from? How did they become so popular? How have people rationalized their hate for Jewish people over the years?

In Sunday school, I was taught that David and Solomon ruled over a large and wealthy state. How much support is there for this view?

Britain fought several wars over this question, and the answer there seemed to be "yes." But I'm less familiar with the the history of continental Europe.

Was it solely a Catholic/Protestant feud that required monarchs to be part of the state church, or would an Eastern Orthodox monarch also be required to convert prior to assuming office?

Would it have mattered if the King of the Netherlands, for example, were a member of Lutheran denomination rather than the Dutch Reformed Church (i.e. would it have been enough for him to simply not be Catholic?)

Were there examples where membership of the state church was not technically required, it just never happened that the monarch was of a different religion?

Are there any examples you know of in which a European monarch was of one religion or denomination, and his/her subjects (or the state church) subscribed to another religion or denomination [and the situation didn't end in an overthrow of the monarch in question]?

Thanks in advance!

Russia's current budget relies extremely heavily on oil revenue, such that the entire country's fortunes rise and fall with the price of oil. How was the Soviet budget financed, especially during the Cold War when it was trying to keep up with the US?

[deleted]

I recently read Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors and the Japanese attack was depicted as overly complex and byzantine. Assuming that this was not just the case of commanders desperately throwing all remaining forces at the Allies, was there any longer term plan of reversing the tide of the war?

Self explaining title..

I'm currently writing an exam on culturehistorical archaeology and i do believe his method is hypothetico-deductive, as it seems he already had a 'hypothesis' before hand - and thereby making it hypo-deductive.

I'm interested in both why the Ming had become so weak as to not be able to successfully resist, and how the Manchus were strong enough to do it. Were they invited in, or did they just seize an opportunity?

Aristotle would be displeased but I am quite the Loconophile.

If anyone knows a good book that goes in-depth about their unique culture I would be very grateful.

Thanks!