I just finished reading Adrienne Mayor's excellent book, "The First Fossil Hunters", which is about how people in the Classical era found fossils and interpreted them as the bones of heroes or mythical creatures. Her book mostly concerns itself with the ancient Greeks and Romans, though. Do we have any records of how Europeans in the Medieval and Rennaissance eras interpreted fossils? What did they think when they came across the bones of creatures from the distant past?

Insofar as I currently understand this topic, Venice was somewhat pulled away from Italy by the Habsburgs while they ruled the area, before being somewhat reintegrated with the rest of Italy, but I have no idea to what extent pan-Italian nationalism (or movements against it) were present in Venice throughout different points in the 19th century.

Were Venetians fiercely independent under both Austria and Italy, were they itching to be unified with the rest of Italy, were they more content with Austrian rule than they were Italian, or were they in some kind of limbo state where its people didn't necessarily want to become Italian but didn't really mind when they did - or something else? And, as a slight extension, were there any stark differences between, say, the upper-class elites, urbanites, rural peasantry, the military, etc.?

Where they in Paris?

I know that under a feudal system, all land was really owned by the king, who granted the rights to manage it to lords, who in turn further divided it to people that actually worked the land.

But once a lord had been granted these rights, was it basically theirs to do with as they wish? Could they sell or trade the whole or parts of it freely, or did that require permission from their king?

Could (theoretically) essentially anyone buy the rights to the land from a lord, and become vassal directly under the king, without the king's input?

Could lords expand by buying more land from other lords, or perhaps conquering it from them?

Time to kick off the 2022 voting!

I'm not sure if this should be posted to r/AskScience instead. Basically I was just wondering if nuclear fallout/long lasting radiation was desired for the atomic bomb for the extra level of fear it gave, or if it was merely seen as a byproduct of making the biggest explosion. I understand the radiation of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't actually last that long, but it surely would have killed many who had somehow survived the initial blasts.

I was curious how long this practice of removing body hair dates back to.

Used 'women' here in particular, because in my culture, men mostly don't go for it, but I realise this might be biased.

Currently reading Dan Jones' excellent new book Powers and Thrones. He talks of Pope Urban II election in 1088 and mentioned that Rome had been recently attacked by Normans in southern Italy at the time. Im just curious if these are the same Normans as William the Conqueror and his people? I wasn't aware that they settled or existed in the south of Italy.

When you learn about the history of Britain you learn that in around 43AD under Emperor Claudius, the romans landed in Britian and almost fully conquered it by 87 and it was part of the empire for around 367 years, people claim they built hadrian's wall to keep the Scottish tribes from attacking them but I've read that they got as far as into the central belt of Scotland, but the Internet claims they've never invaded Ireland is there any reasons/theories as to why they didn't? Surely they would have seen it from Galloway.

I watched a video (from SurleChamp french youtube channel) about the War in the Pyrenees during the First Coalition War and the author talked about how at the end of the war, the Basel Treaty was signed between Spain and France.

One of the clauses was along the lines of (translation mine from Wikipedia): "Starting from the ratification of this here treaty, the French Republic may extract from Spain mares and stallions from Andalusia, merinos ewes and sheep for 5 consecutive years: 50 stallions, 150 mares, 1000 ewes and 100 sheep every year".

Why was such a clause included? At a first glance, it is too low to be really useful economically yet enough be a logistical nightmare. It seems like a petty clause to remind Spain that they were beaten. Did they follow through? (and did France expect the Spanish to do it?). Did they really manage these sheep arriving in whatever ports?

Greetings! First ever post here, so forgive me if I break any rules

I find the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars a fascinating topic, and have read a bit about Austrian history too. However, I've noticed an absence of accounts from the Ottoman Empire's view of Austria, the Habsburg Monarchy and Dynasty as a whole.

Considering that Austria acted as a counter to Ottoman expansion in Europe for centuries, what were the Ottomans' view of Austria as a country, its culture, people and ruling dynasty? Especially at the conflict's beginning, and after the Siege of Vienna of 1683 and Leopold I's subsequent conquest of Hungary (which I once read was the first time the Ottomans had to permanently give up territory)?

Were Austrians seen as unforgivable enemies? Was there surprise at Austria's resilience against Ottoman attacks, or when they started pushing the Ottomans back? Did the Ottomans think they were 'defeated' by the Austrians on the long run?

Every answer is appreciated, just please try not to focus on Karansebes

Bletchingley was part of her settlement from Henry VIII in 1540, and was one of her primary residences until his death. Suddenly, the Privy Council ordered her to move to Penhurst and gave it to the Master of Revels, Thomas Cawarden. Why did they force her to move?

It was governed outside of the church, it had no relation to the Roman empire and rarely held physical control of the city of Rome, but other than the fact that it's fun to say the name was completely wrong, the Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic/national polity that ate several predecessor polities, obtained territory by conquest, and ruled over people who considered the leadership foreign. Sure sounds like an empire but I admit I'm unqualified.

Looking through the poems of Hafez, Rumi, Saadi etc they describe wine so explicitly. Often describing its tastes, and smells as if they were personally drinking it as they wrote.

Was this seen as a taboo in the medieval Muslim world? Was drinking alcohol seen with more leniency than it is today?

As an outsider it would appear as if the medieval Muslim world had a strong drinking culture

I know that the Christians forced out the Muslilms of the city of Jerusalem, and vice versa, at least once each, but what about the surrounding areas? The Kingdom of Jerusalem did extend beyond the large cities I assume.

We've heard the story plenty of times about what a disaster the Gallipoli landings were, but I'm curious why they were necessary at all. Certainly the Allies had the larger and more advanced fleet compared to the Ottomans. Why did attempts to force the straits from the sea fail? Couldn't they have at least used naval bombardment from the near side to soften some of the land defenses and make the landings less treacherous?