I have been wondering about how our perceptions of leadership, and things people today desire in their leaders, may differ from those in the medieval period. So, what would be seen as 'ideal' traits for a medieval monarch/king?

For example, would they want him to be a good fighter and a good military leader? What about a diplomatic and cunning leader? Would diplomacy, or military skill, be respected more in a king?

[deleted]

If they were expecting other people did what they found meet their expectations?

I often see Jared Diamond's works discussed here, but another author who often intertwines physical geography with history is Robert D. Kaplan (see, e.g., "The Revenge of Geography"). Works like Balkan Ghosts, The Ends of the Earth, Mediterranean Winter, Monsoon, and others delve into the history of a region, though often through a travel journalism perspective, and are heavily influential with policymakers in the American government. How does his take on history hold up?

[deleted]

I get that this is kind of broad, but at some point, a number of human societies seem to have gone from operating under the idea that education was reserved for a privileged few to the idea that education was something that everyone should have access to/must participate in to some extent.

When did that shift start to occur? What caused schooling to become common?

If it helps, I'm mostly interested in the USA and Europe, but I'll definitely read answers about other cultures as well.

I hope such a thread is allowed. I saw that Osprey has so many books on countless military history topics. Are they good quality wise and have correct information in them? Are they worth buying?

Here's Philip Marlowe (Raymond Chandler's character):

I'm a licensed private investigator and have been a while. I'm a lone wolf, unmarried, getting middle aged, and not rich. I've been in jail more than once and don't do divorce business. I like liquor and women and chess and a few other things. The cops don't like me too well, but I know a couple I get along with. I'm a native son, born in Santa Rosa, both parents dead, no brothers and sisters, and when I get knocked off in a dark alley sometime, if it happens, as it could to anyone in my business, nobody will feel the bottom has dropped out his or her life.

Since I'm pretty sure everyone had just about the same voice in their head while reading that, a follow-up is: How did Humphrey Bogart's voice become emblazoned onto this character?

Sorry if this has been asked before, I searched before I posted. Every time I learn about a Baroque-era composer, it seems his music was discovered and celebrated after his death (Bach and Vivaldi are the best examples). Which Baroque composers actually enjoyed success and fame during their lives?

The Iberians were ruled by a Muslim empire for 700 years before eventually breaking free. Greeks were ruled by an Islamic caliphate for 400 years before winning a civil war. Why didn't the Coptic church go through something similar? Particularly during the crusades (probably their best opportunity).

Did the Provisional IRA have a specific name for the cause they were fighting for?

ETA: Would that variation even be any more pronounced than the variation between a city dweller and someone living in the countryside 500 miles away in 40 BC?

Hey guys, I have had this question bothering me for quite a while. My question is regarding Jesus who specifically said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17). To me this implies, that he wanted to continue the Jewish way of life and its laws and he was living Jewish life.

However, later Paul seem to have twisted, based on a vision that the new Jews are not those in flesh, but those in the spirit and he abolished many of the commandments, such as circumcision which might prevented people to convert to Judaism/ early Christianity (brilliant marketing move though, Paul).

So how do Christians settle this difference? Can we say that (early) Christian is not what Jesus actually meant it to be?

Both the French Revolutionary and Nationalism scholars I've read argue that nationalism originated during the French Revolution. While we have an idea of nationalism that's been established through history, the French Revolutionaries' concept of the "national" would not have the same ideas and implications associated with it today. So, what did they think they were saying when they chose "national." Why not something else?

To be more specific my teacher states that Indian religions (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism) as well as Confucianism believed that God/Gods existed as part of all things, while Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) believed that man was imperfect and that understanding the physical world would allow them to understand god's mind.

Yesterday there was an item on the radio describing a taskforce that had to come up with a solution for the Jewish question. It was pitched that they could be put to work and work themselves to death. That would boost the economy and get rid of Jews. Has this same taskforce come up with other and more humane possible solutions that ended up getting rejected?

[deleted]