I burn easily so wear sunscreen religiously. Even still my ears get crispy and peel 1 or 2 times per year.

Are there writings of fair skinned people who suffered permanent sun damage? Especially but not limited to ears.

(Basically I'm wondering if my ears would've dropped off my head by now if I lived in the olden days.)

Of the sixty-two people who have served as Prime Minister of Japan, eight have been Christian, and of the thirty-three post-World War II prime ministers, six have been Christian. Why is this the case, given that Christianity is the religion of only about one percent of the Japanese population?

Obviously, there were historians who were active during the Middle Ages. How did they refer to their present? How did they classify the preceding historical epochs?

I have been watching Enemy at the Gates and I am curious about the curacy of the movie.

Recently a saw Saving Private Ryan and the showed the presence of flame thrower during the beach assault. I made some research and i discover in a book that in an "assault boat team" there was a flamethrower.

I get that they want to honor people and places with historical significance, but from an "intimidate your enemy" perspective, which I think is a military ship's primary goal, wouldn't more intimidating names be more effective?

Normally when I think of a Samurai I just think of your typical generic samurai with his basic bitch armor (I actually have no idea what kind of armor they wore) that's whatever color, a kabuto that may or may not have a face piece (a menpo right?), and then whatever weapon they may be carrying.

I learned from here that samurai basically bring whatever weapon they like to the battle field with them, which makes sense to me.

Although, I'm not too sure if this is exactly the same when it comes to their armor.

So I have a couple of questions that stem from this:

1. Was there any sort of "standardization" when it came to a samurai's armor? If I were a samurai that fought for the Oda clan, what would I HAVE to wear besides the clan's sashimono (I'm thinking more like a specific color scheme on the armor maybe, or some sort of identifying piece other than a sashimono to make the army look more homogenous).

2. Would a samurai in any case ever not wear his Kabuto? And if so, how common was it? Like maybe wear a headband or Jingasa instead?

3. Probably a stupid question, but did EVERYBODY have a Sashimono?

4. How did samurai armor vary, and did every samurai just use one type, or did they all use a different type?

Also, a very unrelated question I have since I don't want to make another post for it: Were Warrior Monks (Sohei) ever actually enlisted into a clan's military?

I know the monks of Honganji had a little alliance with the Asakura and Azai, but I wonder if they were actually employed into these armies or not.

I have to write a research paper for my World Civilization class that has a requirement of two primary source documents. I was wondering if anyone knew a good database or other repository to start looking for primary historical sources. Thanks

My friends and I found ourselves were in a debate with our teacher and the topic of slavery came up. Our teacher stated that slavery in Britain was responsible for the Industrial Revolution. Is my teacher correct on this?

Could this word be the indigenous term the Indus Valley Civilisation called themselves, or a variation of it?

I was surprised to read in Henry Kamen's general history Spain, 1469-1714: A Society of Conflict that Erasmus was viewed as sort of a lightning rod of dangerous thought that the Inquisition quickly crushed in the late 1520s and early 1530s, seeming to confuse his ideas with Protestant and mystical influences. Yet the bulk of Erasmus's career occurred before the 1530s. I know that humanist traditions were present in Spanish universities, and Erasmus was also extremely influential elsewhere in the Holy Roman Empire and in the court of Charles V. How influential were his works in Spain? Did he have much of a following? Were his works/ideas repressed or is this a case of the Black Legend undermining Spanish humanist learning traditions?

Where did they live?

How often were they involved in IRA activities?

How long did they serve for?

How old were they?

Edit: I am referring to the PIRA

I've seen the claim that it was only useful for British economic interests several times. Usually in a dialogue that goes something like

"Imperialism was bad for the colonized."

"But the Empire built infrastructure!"

"But that infrastructure was not useful for an independent country, only for Britain."

Were there something that made the established railroads and rail lines significantly less useful for an independent sub-continent, than for the Raj? Is it due to extractive industries being less economically useful for a country than other kinds?

I know that "leaving useful infrastructure" is pretty far from being a good excuse for imperialism - just wondering about the argument itself.

Note: I posted this question six months ago, and /u/BringlesBeans answered just now via PM as the thread was archived. Reposting so their answer can be shared.

[deleted]

The quote is from Paul. In putting rather onerous restrictions on the person who enjoys rights of passage on other people's land, he says that it is only in certain limited legal circumstances that individuals may carry a spear upright over someone else's land. The requirement that the spear be carried upright seems very important.

I find it hard to imagine a spear significantly damaging crops merely by making contact with the crops at a walking pace. So I'm interested in the design and sharpness of Roman spears.

[deleted]

"Good people, I am come hither to die, and by a law I am condemned to the same. The fact, indeed, against the queen’s highness was unlawful, and the consenting thereunto by me: but touching the procurement and desire thereof by me or on my behalf, I do wash my hands thereof in innocency, before God, and the face of you, good Christian people, this day"

Is she claiming that she is innocent, or admitting her guilt ? Or is she saying she was guilty under the law, but is innocent before God?