I've seen all sorts of claims about the roles women could play in "Viking Society". Anywhere from still subservient to husbands/fathers but with a large degree of independence, to outright claims of leading holds with equivalent political power as men (that is until Christianity arrived and men got jealous, causing them to flee from their once egalitarian life). What sources are there on gender roles in pre-Christian Scandinavia, and what liberties did women enjoy? How would it compare to the rest of Europe?

When we think of classic western fairy tales today, we think of stereotypical images of kings, knights, princesses, castles, and quaint medieval peasants. At what point in the storytelling tradition did this stereotypical Middle Ages imagery become the fixed iconography for fairy tales, and why/how did this imagery become so deeply connected in how we imagine the tales? Were they originally told in the Middle Ages with contemporary imagery, and then the stories just stayed the same while the world around them developed? Or was there a point in the 18th and 19th centuries where people decided that stories set in the medieval era were better than stories set in their "modern" eras?

Hey everyone, I'm currently writing a research paper regarding the advancements in technology specifically weaponry in the Civil War. I've been diving into the Spencer Repeating Rifle and other weapons similar to the Spencer, like the Henry.

I'm looking for some more personal accounts of the weapon specifically from soldiers who carried the weapon or from Generals, such as Custer who acquired them for their men. I'm looking for either some published war diaries that potentially have mentionings of the Spencer or some digitized collections with these that I'd have access to.

Anything from records of the number of rifles the government purchased, personal writings of officers/soldiers, or anything else that would be of relevance.

Secondary literature is ripe and I've found an abundance of these sorts of things mentioned; however, I can't seem to find a good place that actually has the primary sources. If anyone could point me in the right direction that would be very helpful. Thank you all!

Hi Historical community of Reddit, I am in a Roman history class in college. I wanted to know a few things. First, what is known about the Library? Did it exist? etc. Second, What do we know about its destruction? If anyone could answer these questions for me id appreciate it.

Surely there had to be a larger variety of fruit wines before grape wine and cider became the standard right?

I am reading Mazower's The Greek Revolution and he notes that while the Filiki Eteria were unusually influential they were not unique as a revolutionary secret society at the time. They were also a source of serious concern for conservatives like Metternich, and drove a great deal of despotic domestic policy.

Mazower briefly notes that they sprung up after the defeat of Napoleon but it isn't really the focus of the book, so I am curious for more detail on them. Likewise they seem to have been modeled on earlier examples like the Freemasons (which I suppose are only semi-secret) and the Illuminati.

Many Norsemen notably served in the Byzantine empire as mercenaries, many as well served the Rurikid Rus Princes who were Orthodox, did these Norsemen get a chance to influence which sect of Christianity the peninsula would embrace?

I was just reading about the Tsar Bomba (biggest ever atomic bomb tested in 1961 in Siberia), and according to Wikipedia the bomb was developed against the backdrop that the Soviet Union throughout the 50s had suffered under a great geopolitical disadvantage due to the fact that the US nuclear threat towards Russian soil was much greater than the Russian threat in the opposite direction.

Obviously I was previously aware that the Cuba Missile crisis happened because placement of missiles on Cuba would enable Russia to reach the (entire?) US with their missiles – but I guess always thought the problem was that placement at Cuba would increase Russian range across greater parts of the US – and that the Soviet would already have been able to reach, for instance, the far Eastern or Western coasts of the US.

Now, according to Wikipedia again, the US at some point prior to the Cuban missile crisis had missiles installed in Turkey and Italy, which enabled them to reach Moscow.

When did this happen?

So I guess my question is a bit more general than the title suggests – would someone be willing to give a brief overview of what the relative respective atomic nuclear reaches of the Soviet Union and the US looked like in the years following WW2 and up until the 70s/80s?

Before these two fighters, Soviet aircraft were very angular and sharp pointed, like the Su-17 and the Mig-23/25. What made them switch to a much more curvy design style of the newer Soviet fighters?

Of the nine countries that currently have a nuclear arsenal, how many of them designed and built their own nuclear warheads, and if they received assistance, to what extent?

So in historical discussions of the logistics of invading and conquering an island nation, such as the planned German invasion of England in Operation Sea Lion, it is often brought up how much of a difficult task that is. All throughout history this notion that Island nations present a greater challenge to invade and subdue than say a country with a large land border like Ukraine. Examples include the German invasion of Crete, the planned American invasion and predicted casualties of invading Japan, the twice failed invasions of Japan by the Mongols, and in contemporary history it is often said that America can be treated like a large island with water bordering on most sides and presenting a significant challenge to would be invaders.

However, these are contrasted with smaller islands such as those the Japanese and Americans fought over in WW2 where entire Japanese units were starved out during the Island Hopping campaign as their supply lines were cut. So my question is that in theory it would certainly appear that a larger Island nation such as the UK or Japan could survive a naval blockade or invasion, but what about smaller nations such as Taiwan? What have smaller island nations done in the past? What chance does a smaller island nation stand if a much larger naval force completely encircled their island and cut their supply lines? Thanks!

Since being castrated puts one at risk for bone/joint problems, obesity, skin aging, etc, did they ever get specialized treatment from physicians to try and help these issues? Also as an add on did they tend to live shorter lives because of their health being out of whack?

I apologize for piling on another Russian question. There are lot of reports about the current war that the Russians are facing high casualties. I am seeing many comments that is the normal way the Russians fight. These comments typically recount how WWII Soviet casualties were astronomical due to mindless human wave attacks.

However, my limited surface knowledge about WWII makes me doubt these claims. Sure, the Soviets had a high casualties during the war, but was that really due to mindless fighting? I am somewhat under the impression that commanders such as Zhukov and Rokossovsky were actually quite skilled in strategy and tactics, and not did not simply rely on throwing more soldiers at the enemy.

Is the assessment that Soviet/Russian tactics are nothing more than "send in more men" a historically correct one?

A couple of my ancestors lost their entire family and were orphaned on the voyage to America from Germany in ~1740. The story told is that they became the property of the ship captain and were separated and sold as indentured servants. The orphans were siblings, an 8 year-old boy and a 5 year-old girl.

I'd like to know what life may have been like for them. What sort of services were young children able or required to perform? I know that times were different, but I struggle to imagine young children capable of doing much in the way of service. Were they likely educated? When people bought indentures, why would they buy contracts for children?