Have been working on a history essay for my minor, and been reading Foucault's 'Discipline and Punish' as an introduction. He mentions the decline in the use of public punishments, but also the impact of the industrial revolution in France and in England for shifting the limits of 'socially acceptable illegalities', which changed as property moved from landed to more absolute property rights.

What social dynamics of mutual 'criminality' were occurring between different social strata before this shift in the mid-18th century? And was the formation of the new social norms of punishment tied to these new property rights, or was it a more general shift towards punishing lower classes for general criminal activities that hadn't been adequately prosecuted by judicial courts before?

I've always heard people say that the only reason we still have the Odyssey and the Iliad is because the Arab Caliphate kept translations of them after Western Rome collapsed. I've heard this from a lot of people, but is it true that they were the only reason? Did the Eastern Roman Empire not keep records of those books?

I was recently having a discussion with a friend regarding historical figures and how currently we tend to demonize certain ones for the negative aspects of their character while other figures seem to get a pass. She stated that Abraham Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery only for the southern states but intended to allow it to continue in the northern states. Is there any truth to this? I thought that by the time of Lincoln's presidency the northern states had already abolished slavery but she said that wasn't true, that there were types of slavery that were "grandfathered in" and that Lincoln intended to allow that to continue but only for the northern states.

Title. If so, what did their training/workouts consist of?

Let's take "fighting force" to mean whatever the local military authority in the place you want to talk about could usually muster. You see tabards and decorated helms and brightly colored brigandines in illustrations but I'm wondering how widespread (or rare) this was. I only really ever read about much earlier periods and usually in the Mediterranean world so everything is always bright and loud.

Not to step on anyone's religious beliefs, but I was wondering what evidence exists of a "historical" Jesus, specifically in his own time period? The bible was written between 52 and 60 A.D., so that was not contemporary. Are there any written Roman documents about him or anything like that? Thanks!

As far as I am aware the "royal forest" in England was an innovation of the Norman conquest, so I assume that the origins were Continental, but there is no Roman precedent I am aware of. How dd the idea develop that the king should set aside large tracts of land for the purpose of a leisure activity?

I realy love history but a lot of people are telling me l shouldn't study it because l won't be able to find work. Where can l get work if l graduate?

What advice can you give me?

In Mike Duncan's podcast Revolutions while talking about the French Revolution he goes into Austria controlling Belgium. He explains that the British wanted to keep it out of the hands of the French. What's the story here? If the Austrians didn't want it, and the British wanted it out of the hands of the French, why not the British just take it?

Allied bombers completely leveled more than a quarter of all buildings in the capital city. There was no running water. All bridges were destroyed and there were really no railroads operable. What did civilians eat and drink? And how did they get these necessities?

Are there any videos of a group attempting a large scale archer volley from a realistic battle distance using shields and something like pig carcas to do an honest example of the power and/or failings of said volley. I am watching a doco that talks heavily about how powerful the long bow is and they used an example of a man with a long bow shooting a pig carcas from about 20m out. I feel that example is dishonest for the sake of the doco and would like to see a more realistic example of the power of the volley.

From my understanding, Native Americans did face a lot of deaths due to diseases and whatnot brought by Europeans, but Germ Theory wasn't discovered until much later, so is it reasonable to believe that diseases were given to the Natives on purpose, or should it be considered a misfortunate effect of settlers interacting with the Natives? On top of that, weren't most of the conflicts that involved relocation usually fought out between European Settlers (eventually the U.S. government) and the Native Americans, hence the category of the American Indian Wars? If casualties of war are supposed to be accounted for when deciding what is and is not genocide, should we also colloquially consider the Russians victims of genocide in the World Wars? Millions of soldiers died fighting against foreign invaders, and many POWs were also killed in death camps during the Second World War. Please, do not take this the wrong way. I do not want this post to be removed for mis-identified racism, as I am just having a tough time understanding.

if an officer today treated his superior like beresford treated fisher, he would very quickly be canned or sent to the worst command. why was he tolerated to go on like he did for several years?

I've recently been watching a show called Outlander, and while it may not be 100% historically accurate many of the historical events it depicts are. From what I have seen, British rule in Scotland was just as bloody and brutal as it was in the colonies, which later became independent. Yet Scotland is still a part of the UK. Why is this?

In World War 1 & 2, no particular army in mind. I'm just curious about what was really expected of individuals who didn't wish to kill for whatever reason.

I was getting drinks with a friend a while back and we were talking about ancestry. She explained that her parents grew up under the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia. After the Soviet Union fell her parents were quick to get out of Europe and come to America. She told me that when she went to look up records online she was unable to find anything about her family before or during Soviet times.

I understand that maybe records were destroyed during the fall of the Soviet Union but from what I understand Czechoslovakia was a peaceful break away. If it were peaceful than the records should still be around right?