In Pride and Prejudice, Mr Darcy spends about 3 weeks visiting Lady Catherine De Burgh with Col. Fitzwilliam, who was a great friend of his mother's.

Mr Darcy is a man of vast independent means, and it is made clear that while Lady De Burgh wants him to marry her daughter, he has absolutely no interest in the match. It is also made clear that he has a very low opinion of Lady De Burgh herself.

To a modern reader, it seems odd that he should spend such a long time visiting someone for whom he has no personal affection, nor any expectation of material advancement: Lady De Burgh can give him absolutely nothing which he needs or wants. And I don't think it is suggested in the text that he contrived the visit simply because Ms Bennett would be there, or that he was even aware of that fact?

Presumably to a contemporary reader, the visit is not an odd one though. Would visiting family friends for this length of time have been common for someone of Mr Darcy's class? Why?

Edit: Mods I'm sorry I added the wrong flair and now seem unable to change it myself.

Considering the fact that the islamic golden age was actually liberal and open to debates, what did the philosophers living in that period think of LGBTQ+? Do we have any records about the discussions and debates around such issues?

We all know the tragedy of the Titanic, the "unsinkable" ship that ironically did just that after collision with an iceberg, claiming well over half the people onboard. I've been fascinated by the story since the age of 10, so naturally I've seen the James Cameron film a couple of times on VHS. But one thing that's got me thinking is the first bit of dialogue when we see the young Rose seeing the ship for the first time.

Rose: "I don't see what all the fuss is about. It doesn't look any bigger than the Mauritania."

Cal: "You can be blase about some things Rose, but not about Titanic. It's over a hundred feet longer than the Mauritania, and far more luxurious."

Yes, I am familiar with how luxurious the Titanic was when it first launched, having a gym, a Parasian cafe, squash courts, swimming pool, and even a Turkish bathhouse. But just how did the Mauritania compare based on this and other aspects? What else did the Titanic have that the Mauritania didn't, and vice versa? What was the overall "feel" of the Mauritania compared to Titanic? And what got so many people sold on the Titanic compared to other luxury cruise ships of it's time besides the obvious like size and amenities?

Were there already famous stories involving those historic figures and their deeds? Or did Guanzhong popularize the period and it's individuals in the culture?

In Bridgerton Daphne, the eldest girl has absolutely no knowledge of what sex is, what the penis is, what it does, or how women get pregnant and have children, even once she is married.

She isnt shown to be naive- she knows women get a 'reputation' for going into a maze known for hooking up, and is seen spending time with her brothers in inappropriate venues like the boxing.

Is it accurate that she would be kept so in the dark when she has older brothers she is close with, is around animals, and has many friends of a similar age? Would there not have been gossip and whispers from women who were more adverturous than her, even if her mother didn't prepare her?

One of the books I am reading for a class claims there is evidence that, as the title says, psychedelics (specifically mushrooms, more specifically amanita muscaria) were used by Europeans until 1100-1300. The author cites what he claims is plentiful mushroom iconography throughout chapels and other art during this period.

Is there any truth to this, or at least to the idea that Europeans of this period had some knowledge/cultural memory of such a practice?

EDIT: The particular book in question is The Psychedelic Gospels by Jerry Brown.

So, it was about 160 km to the East/West German border from Berlin at the time. If the Cold War broke out into actual armed conflict, what would have been the plan of the US Army Berlin command, the Berlin Brigade, etc.? Did they have enough provisions to hold out despite being behind the Iron Curtain geographically? Were East German/Soviet forces relatively sparse around the city that getting surrounded was not that big of an issue? Would NATO forces have easily arrived from West Germany for reinforcements (Would they have tried to re-supply from the air again)?

What happened to the Parthians after the Sassanids, and the subsequent Arab Conquest? Why did their language die out, and do they have any modern-day descendants?

The Museum's early medieval section states the Roman capital was entirely abandoned by roughly 420-30AD, and a later text states Lundenwic was then founded c.600 near the modern Strand - where merchants could beach ships. The same text states that Mercian kings later commanded Lundenwic, but that it was abandoned following the Viking raids of 842 and 851. A further text explains the old Roman city was later reoccupied by the Anglo Saxons following the Battle of Edington.

Was the City of London really fully abandoned following the 420s/30s? Considering the size of the Roman settlement, not to mention the existing defensive structures that could have been repaired and reused - and the wealth of building materials available for repurposing - I find it difficult to believe the Roman city stood completely abandoned nearby for so long. Is it true that Lundenwic was maintained as a separate entity to the old Londonium? And if so, do we know why the Anglo Saxon leaders chose not to reoccupy London until after the defeat of the 'Vikings' - especially if they were so vulnerable to raids without the old walls!

The classic image that comes to my mind is the introduction of Yzma in *The Emperor's New Groove---*the monarch on their throne, acting as the supreme judge. Some depictions have the king focusing on peasant matters, while others pay more attention to nobles and other wealthy citizens.

I'm curious about how accurate this is. For example:

• Did this actually happen? How much of the monarch's time would be spent holding court (e.g. once a week)?
• Was this actually held in the throne room? If not, where?
• What sort of disputes were resolved?

Thanks in advance!

Hi y'all! My pop pop, Milton F Perry, left behind a boat load of unfinished work after his unexpected death 30 years ago. He was the curator for the Truman library in independence as well as the Jesse James home.

We have box after box of his diaries, pictures of the war room during the dropping of the atomic bombs in ww2, sketches and paint samples of the art work done by Thomas hart benton, unpublished books, coins, stamps, newspapers, Truman's diaries as well as my pop pops.

We want to properly archive and store them, transcribe the documents to digital forms, etc. We don't know where to start or who to talk to. So I figured I'd come to the place of answers and community, reddit.

Can anyone help us?

Just found out I'm 70% Scandinavian!

Was there any logic behind the renaming of certain cities? Were certain types of cities/ certain specific personalities preferred or was there no overarching themes?

Whenever I try to find more about this I only end up with articles about Ruby Bridges, even if I type “in France” it’s just article about Mrs. Bridges but in french. Does anyone have any idea about this please ?

comparing aramaic&musnad scripts to ancient and middle persian

How do the aramaic/musnad scripts compare to ancient (achemanid) or middle(parthian&pahlavi/ sassanid) persian scripts? Could someone fluent in pahlavi somewhat understand nabatian too?or vise versa They somewhat look similar too?

I.e, were they mostly regulated to being garrison weapons or did they see significant use on the open battlefield? As far as I am aware the typical non-windlass crossbow has light and heavy, etc, bolts and about four different typical heads, so I would presume that the windlass crossbow fired heavier bolts, but this is just presumption. Provided it does, how significant would the weight difference be?

Most to all online reference material I can find refers exclusively to bolts used in modern weapons, certainly much lighter due to the use of polymers, etc..

Tangentially, if anyone knows & assuming modern records can tell us at all: how many bolts did an arbalester carry? Was the ammunition issued for free to each arbalester? How were & how many bolts for windlass arbalests, assuming heavier weight and length, carried by a man relative to non-windlass, lighter crossbows from earlier eras?

Preemptive thank you very much if you can give any insight into any of these questions

Are there any Mesoamerican trading maps that show Northern natives interacting with the natives of what is now known as Mexico? Or any source, that I could learn about the connections these people had with eachother.

I tried looking for maps showing this connection. And it's just crazy to me, to think that these people had no connection to eachother, when the only thing that separates them is a border ( referring to today's border) .

Edit: why can't I see the other comments?

As I understand, the earliest sources for the Norse myths we have are from Snorri Sturluson, a poet and politician, who compiled them after the Norse people had become (for the most part) Christian.

I'm assuming generally that Europe looked up to the Greco-Roman world, and given this, is there evidence that the Norse myths were "Romanized", to emulate the Greco-Roman Pantheon more, as Northern Europe wanted to secure its place in a pan-European culture, and participant the in Roman Empire?

For instance, I understand that we have evidence for a god that appears to be the most popular god, in terms of place names-- Ullr, the god of glory, but he doesn't appear in any of the myths or history. One might theorize that, as the most popular god, all trace and record of him were obliterated, since he would be the main competitor of Christianity.

So then in the Norse myths that we have, the most popular gods, in terms of story and hierarchy of the gods, are Odin and Thor. As a father and son duo, they compare nicely with Jupiter and Heracles, the father-son duo who are also popular in Greco-Roman myths, and of course also with the Father and Son of Christianity.

So replacing in whole a popular god with a new religion, and then "re-reading" old myths, in the modern sense, to valorize characters who comport more with models of the dominant culture and empire would help integrate northern Europe into the Roman empire, the Christian Church, and a pan-European identity in general.

Does this theory hold any water?

It's very common to hear of soldiers suffering from PTSD. While I'm sure there would definitely be cases of people back then suffering from PTSD, the question is, was it as pervasive back then as it is now?

So I'm reading A RISING MAN by Abir Mukherjee, set in 1919 Calcutta, and the (British) protagonist is ruminating about the opium dens of Little Chinatown and how the British police there should probably not bother cracking down on them since "we'd fought two wars against [Chinese] Emperors for the right to peddle the damn stuff in their country. And peddle it we did. So much that so that we managed to make addicts out of a quarter of the male population . . . [which] probably made Queen Victoria the greatest drug peddler in history" (63).

What wars is the author referring to? And were they really fought for this reason? And can someone be more specific about what rights were won and how that resulted in the drug trade?

Is this something that the average Brit knows and accepts?

Is this aspect of Queen Victoria's rule commonly represented or is it mitigated or minimized or marginalized somehow?

Any insight would be very appreciated.