As opposed to our previous understanding of planets as orbs of light in the sky that just seemed to wander in the sky.

And if there is a direct historical event that led to the discovery, was it confirming a theory of planets previously set forth? And if so, how was this theory devised?

I read a time travel story once that depicted them doing it over 3000 years ago

Big fan of this subreddit, first time posting. What is the oldest recorded evidence we have that classifies cannibalism as either a crime against the law or against God? Sorry in advance for any grammatical errors and/or for breaching the rules of this sub.

How would one get to America back then if you desired to move from Europe to the USA?

Excluding extreme cold, tropics, and common epidemics of the time, why would disease be such a big problem? Did commanders do calculations such as "Yeah I have 10 thousand men right now, but when we get to x city , only 6 thousand will remain, so I should plan accordingly"? And which disease would be most likely to kill a soldier in summer in Central Europe, let's say in Seven Years War?

I know they considered the Nile holy, with the god Hapy associated with its floods and the Pharaoh having magical control over it. Did they consider other river as holy too?

[deleted]

My understanding is that Lincoln fought the war against the South in order to preserve the Union (more so than to free slaves or any other reason), but I don't understand why he (or others) would see the secession of the CSA as any different than the secession of the colonies from Britain a hundred years previous. If Lincoln thought it was fine for the colonists to declare independence in 1776, why wouldn't it be similarly permissible for southern states to do so as well? So, did Lincoln see himself as acting just as Britain had done during the Revolutionary War?

I have seen what sounds like Lincoln's argument that the states could not secede because states entered of their own free will by ratifying the Constitution, but I'm not convinced that means they'd have to remain in the Union a hundred years following, particularly when the Articles of Confederation had only lasted for a short time and the idea of a colony becoming independent was totally new. The Constitution left no legal means for leaving the Union, just as England had left no legal means for leaving the crown.

I have also seen the idea that Britain was infringing on the rights of the Englishmen (Americans) to not be taxed without representation. Couldn't the southern states make similar arguments, that even though they were represented in Congress, they felt that they would never get the rights they deserved because the northern states (and probably later the western ones as well, which wouldn't need slaves) preventing them from it?

As far as economic reasons, it sounds like the South was particularly valuable and possibly in symbiotic cooperation with the North, considering their comparative advantages in different industries. So, I can understand why economically the North would have wanted to retain the South in the Union. That sounds to me like the same explanation Britain would have used, but it doesn't sound like a justification so much as an explanation.

I have read various posts about how the Civil War was actually about Slavery or about States' Rights, so I'm just assuming for this conversation that even if it was "about States' Rights" that the most important right in question was the right to own slaves. Unless I'm misunderstanding, this doesn't seem like an important distinction for my question, since the North's goal was to preserve the Union rather than to do moral good in freeing the slaves. Regardless of why the South wanted to leave, what were the North's arguments justifying their actions when the Colonies had done nearly the same thing to Britain?

So, did Lincoln think he was morally justified in putting down the "rebellion" as he called it, just as King George III had tried to do with the colonies?

I'm trying to find a source for a possibly untrue historical fact I have bouncing around in my head.

Was the original intention of Washington D.C. that no one would make it their permanent home, but that they would only travel there when Congress was in session? Did any of the Founding Fathers express that opinion?

I sort of wrote a novel where that belief plays a major role. Probably should have looked that up before spending 3 years on it.

[deleted]

The trail seems to just go dry on them. It doesn't seem like the last caliph was killed and surely after centuries of relative security in Egypt the Abbasid family would have many living members. Did no one keep tabs on this ancient and prestigious family? Muslims seem to have been pretty good with family trees so I'd be surprised if the Abbasids just vanish into thin air after 16th century.

I undestand this isn't a simple question, as the there were many type of roads and different ways of buildings them.

But looking at modern (obviously) picutres of roman roads some look quite bumpy to the point of being unreasonable. Making stone smooth wouldn't be a problem and would be better both for people walking, wagons and animals.

Obviously the fact that they are thousands of year old don't do them any favors, but do we have an idea how smooth paved roads were back then?

Gratitude.

One thing I often notice when I watch historical TV shows like The Last Kingdom (definitely not always an A+ source for accurate history) is that the beards vary between nations. Vikings are almost always bearded, but many of the Saxons go with tiny mustaches or are even clean-shaven. Then I read this in a pop history article: "1066 - Shaving and haircuts help William of Normandy invade England to overcome Harold the Saxon of Hastings. Harold's spies ventured out before the attack and came back reporting a large group of priests seen nearby but no enemy."

This seems to imply that the Normans were clean-shaven habitually, while the Saxons were more hairy.

My question boils down to this: In the early middle ages (say c. the 900s-1000s) did facial hair help people distinguish between nations or cultural/religious groups? Did the Scandinavians, Saxons, Franks, Normans, and people in the Holy Roman Empire wear their beards differently, and leave a record of it? Did beards have any special religious significance in terms of the conflict between Christianity and paganism? And are there any historical books and articles on early medieval or dark ages hair and fashion out there?

TL;DR: How did the many varieties of early medieval peoples wear their hair and beards in the era of the 900s-1000s, and were haircuts used as a marker to distinguish between cultural, religious, and national groups?

Thanks much for your time.

An RPG called Kingdom Come: Deliverance is coming out this year and it's set in that period. I want to learn more about the period before playing the game.

The game takes place in the Kingdom of Bohemia, part of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown and modern-day Czech Republic. Specifically, Act 1 is based on the real-world area between Sázava and Rataje nad Sázavou.

The game begins in 1403. and the important historical figures involved are Charles IV, Wenceslaus IV and Sigismund. There's also some kind of war happening. I'm not sure what war, that's why I'm here asking you and also why I wanna read about it before playing the game. There was also something about a war with the hussites or something in the period after the game takes place. I want to learn about all of it.

For more clues on what I should be reading here's the full summary from wikipedia:

Kingdom Come: Deliverance takes place in the Kingdom of Bohemia, part of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown and modern-day Czech Republic. Specifically, Act 1 is based on the real-world area between Sázava and Rataje nad Sázavou. The game begins in 1403.

The old king has died and his heir lacks the power to secure his throne. The new king's brother seizes this opportunity to kidnap the king and pillage his lands, seeking his own advancement. The mentioned kings being the historical figures Charles IV, Wenceslaus IV and Sigismund.

The game will follow the son of a blacksmith, whose family has been killed by the invading army. The protagonist seeks revenge and will ultimately strive to restore the rightful ruler to the throne and order to the land.

Did ancient Chinese states distinguish themselves with flags when China was divided? e.g. warring states/three kingdoms/northern and southern dynasties/five dynasties and ten kingdoms?