I know humans have had animals forever, but usually for some other purpose, like dogs for protection and hunting or cats for pest control.

But when did we start keeping animals to just be pets without caring about a secondary use like stated above?

Probably a dumb question since I only know if history from outside facts and people talking about discussing fictions books, but I can't get how so much was lost after the fall of the Roman Empire.

When you hear of the Roman camps and warfare, everything seem so much more controlled, regimented and structured than what you hear of the later middle ages warfare and combat. I understand that some things definitely changes since there wasn't a uniformed government among all the factions/countries of the Europe at the time, but it seems like so much was thrown out or lost in the intervening ages during the fall of the Roman Empire.

Is there just some general loss of knowledge from languages diversifying or was they're actual attempts to distances themselves from Roman history? I'm just curious as to how the change from such a structured society didn't have any huge remnants in later ages?

I've been reading "A short history of Europe" by Simon Jenkins and it mentions that Spain discouraged and at times made enslavement of indigenous Americans illegal.

I did a bit of background reading and it seems that this is based on religious reasons, but I'm not sure I understand what those reasons actually are and why they didn't apply to Africans.

I can understand communication between Europeans and Asians as there is actually a land connection and you may have people who can act as interpreters. I just can't understand how people who live on completely different continents and were isolated for millennia can understand each other at all, let alone have complex discussions about trade and commerce as they reportedly had. I just can't think of a way that the first Europeans communicated beyond gestures and drawings.

Related question: What script did they use? Does it have anything to do with the Tamazight script used in Morocco today?

We know the bronze age lasted from 3300BC - 1200BC but what would it have been like to live in Ireland during this time period?

I don't know much of chinese history. Some of the few things I know is that the mongols had the Yuang dynasty, the manchus had the Qing dynasty and the han chinese had various others. Was there ever a dynasty where the other two main races in China reigned? Or were another ethnic group like the vietnamese or uyghurs ever close to that?

Prior to the outbreak of WW2, Neville Chamberlain along with France, Italy, and Germany agree to allow Hitler to annex the Sudentanland of Czechoslovakia, assuring that Britain and France will not go to war with Germany for the time being. Chamberlain then signs a separate peace agreement with Hitler, and upon returning to England waves the signed agreement in front of the press famously stating it promises "peace in our time."

The movie, "Munich - The Edge of War" does a great job portraying these events, but the end of the movie seems to imply that Neville Chamberlain knew war was inevitable and was simply trying to buy time for Britain and its allies to build up their strength, painting him in better light than the cowardly appeaser he is seen as today.

There is no question that after the slaughter in WW1 that Chamberlain wanted to do everything possible to avoid another war. All the narratives I'm aware of have always portrayed Chamberlain as naive or cowardly. This idea that he knew war was coming and wanted to buy time to build strength is new to me. Is this true, and has been disregarded by popular history over time? Or is it a revisionist attempt to salvage his reputation?

Edit for typo

I've heard that cats were worshiped in ancient Egypt. I'm curious though, how did that affect the daily life of the average at in Egypt?

Were common people allowed to own house cats? If so, how were they treated? What kind of food did they eat? What about stray cats that lived in the city, were they given special treatment?

Anything about how cats lived in ancient Egypt would be interesting to know. Thank you.

Here's the root of my question: today we have a worldview and an acceptance of all religions such that someone calling themselves "christian" (or muslim, or hindu, etc) is a quick and sometimes necessary shorthand about who they are. In Medieval Europe, however, I would think christian was such an assumed facet of everyday life that there was barely a word even needed for it when referring to oneself - in much the same way as fish have no need for the word "water."

Working on a novel, the first 1/3 of which takes place in Germany in 1475. My lead female character is "frau du wald", or "woman of the forest", or "witch", and at one point is being quizzed by a young boy who wants to know why her dead mother cannot be buried in the church yard. The boy teases out the thought and finally says, "...and that's because " which is where it breaks down for me.

"She wasn't a Christian."

"She didn't worship Jesus." ...or "the christ" ...or "the nazarene" or something.

What is plausible terminology here?

EDIT for clarity: I know that other religions were known and not uncommon. What I'm asking about is terminology: would Joe Peasant have said "I am a Christian", or something more descriptive like "I am a worshipper (or I worship) the Christ" or perhaps "Hell yeah, I loves me some Jesus!"

(Leaving off the idea that a witch, once discovered, probably wouldn't live long. My plot requires her to be important and alive, so she's important and alive.)

In the run up to previous world wars, were there elements of American press that were encouraging and praising Wilhelm or Hitler? What happened to them when war eventually broke out?

Edit: Apologies for my poor autocorrect in the title! It always adds an apostrophe to my weres!

I've recently been doing a lot of reading up on the Moors and their time in Europe (like Al-Andalus) and I often see people say this? How true is this claim (if it even is true)? Is their influence overstated or not?

I mean obviously corn, potatoes, tomatoes and plenty else is very common but do did we or do we still prepare food in any way we learned from people originally in our country?

A number of years back I read Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, set in Russia during the era of Napoleonic conquests, and one thing in particular popped out. Namely, that the Russian aristocrats (including military) who were the principal characters of the novel did not demonize or dehumanize their French enemies.

Rather, French culture was held up as a standard and ideal by the Russian characters in the novel and Napoleon himself was (despite leading enemy troops) regarded as a role model by at least one of the characters, who sought to be their own country's equivalent.

A large part of the reason this pops out is because of the truism that war involves dehumanization of the enemy, which makes the idealization of Napoleon and French culture by Russians fighting against Napoleon's French troops come across as a little strange. Was this a common attitude during the time the novel is set?

The Jewish holiday of Purim is coming up. I understand that there may be some debate about the historical reality of some of the finer points, but I have some questions about the time period the story is set in:

The king's first wife is variously said to have been divorced, banished, and/or executed at the beginning of the story. What's the most realistic scenario for a royal marriage ending in the Achaemenid empire?

Queen Esther is a central figure of the story. Among other things, she risks her life for the offense of approaching her husband the king without being summoned. Was this a usual turn of events in a royal household?

Queen Esther's Jewishness is not known by her husband the king until a dramatic reveal towards the end of the story. Were mixed royal marriages common/unheard of in the Achaemenid empire?

Dates of important events are repeatedly left to chance--drawing lots is a repeated motif for both Jewish and Persian actors in the story. Was this a widespread behavior at the time?

An important resolution to the story: the king is tricked into issuing a secret, royal proclamation with his official seal. When the contents are discovered, the decree cannot be rescinded--but a second, corollary decree is issued to essentially circumvent the first. Does this follow Achaemenid law? Is there any known precedence for something like this?

​

And, if anyone has any other relevant or interesting details, I'd love to hear them