Recently, I've read, that one of the reasons that Poland was largely avoided by the Black Death was the fact, that the Poles didn't kill cats, so there were fewer rats to spread the disease. Why did the rest of the medieval Europe kill cats? Was it only about superstitions?

Also, before the conquest of Judea, did the Romans pray for any local gods? (Yahweh, Tamuz, Ba'al, Mot etc..)

From what I can make out, and I stand to be corrected here, the Saxons were both more numerous and more powerful than the Angles and yet the dream always seemed to be for England.

I was always taught that "England" was a development of "Angleland" our some variation on that. So why didn't the Saxons want "Saxonland"?

To better rephrase it (thanks u/butter_milk):

Why were medieval depictions of non-European animals so varying in quality/accuracy?

Opposition to railways due to trains moving too fast for our brains to process, candles versus light bulbs... it would seem almost any fundamental technological breakthrough had what today seems like frivolous opposition during its time, and these are often brandied out when making a point against current day ludites. Was resistance to progress always there and was it as pervasive as we are lead to believe? (i.e. not just a couple of crackpots)

As an orchestral musician, I've always wondered about this.

Humans have made great advances in the performing arts in the past few years. When you watch a film from the 1930's for example, if you compare the technical skill of the performers, directors, editors, etc to something today, they pale in comparison. Not that their contributions aren't meaningful and beautiful, but we have learned and improved so much in that short amount of time.

I am under the impression that advances in the past centuries must have all led to today's orchestras sounding the best they ever have. I would expect that our performers today are more skilled, generally more talented (larger pool of musicians overall), and have more technology at their disposal. I would also expect that those improvements lead to a better sound, better interpretation of the music, and a more pleasurable concert experience for the average orchestra patron.

Am I way off base? Do we have any examples, reviews, or other writings to compare before the era of recording?

I have heard a lot of storys of aillide POWs excaping but I have never heard any storys of aillide POWs excaping.

[deleted]

[deleted]

In William Taubman's book about Khrushchev he seems empathetic to the ruler. Often painting him as a Gorbachev before his time. He says a lot more, critical and positive, but the tone seems overall positive. Please correct me if I'm wrong, you surely will.

By which I mean spaces dedicated to public education or appreciation/entertainment through the presentation of the artifacts or material culture of other times and places?

My understanding is that at gladiator fights and the circus part of the point was the presentation of the spectacle of the other - other cultures, other ways of behavior and dress, animals from around the world etc.

So it wouldn't seem unlikely to me if there was an interest in other cultures and in historical or momentous artifacts and material culture from other times and places albeit in line with the tastes and mores of Romans.

In other words, was there a kind of B-movie-esque industry that copied fads? Was the market not big enough for something like that?

We know that many American aircraft did not have enough range to fly to Europe from America. So how did the aircraft get to the British airfields?

I found out when I was visiting my family for the holidays that they have all gotten very into "The Curse of Oak Island", a TV show on the History Channel about looking for potential treasure on Oak Island. They caught me up on the story, and I will admit that I started to get into it too!

Watching the episodes, it's I'm pretty sure that they spice things up in order to get more views. The narrator is constantly suggesting that there might be treasures ranging from old Incan gold to the Arc of the Covenant. And every so often a new piece of "evidence" will show up that sets up a potential link to the Knights Templar, or to 17th century pirates. These seem like pretty grand claims to me!

My question is -- how accurate is any of this? Do "mainstream" historians think there's something there, or do they think that the guys digging are just a couple of cranks who are grasping at nothing? The impression that I get is that there isn't nothing, that is, they didn't just find a random spot to dig and then made up a whole lore around it. But I'm still not convinced that they will actually find anything there other than proof that some pirates landed there once.

Maybe part of my reluctance to completely jump on board with the show is the following: If there was actually credible evidence that suggested that very important historical treasures might be buried there, then the Canadian government would be involved, there would be huge teams of archaeologists there, and this would be a much bigger deal than a couple of rich guys playing with bulldozers. Or maybe I don't understand how this kind of stuff works.

I've read the Wikipedia page, and basically the summary is "Some people think there is something here. Here is how some of them have tried to find it. Here is what some of them think it might be." Can anyone here provide a little more information about how credible any of this stuff actually is? And even if you haven't seen the show, maybe you still have some information about the "Oak Island mystery"?

How did the Tariff of Abominations lead to the Nullification Crisis, and how did Nullification work? Is the tactic that was used then, lead by South Carolina against protectionist tariffs they felt favored the north, something that we might be likely to see again soon in a different context, or something that has already recurred in the 20th century? (the latter question being somewhat speculative, I know. Pls disregard if that's verboten.)

I'm seeing a slew of strange echoes and parallels in current US politics to the Jacksonian era (and mid 1800's more generally), and trying to learn more about it.

[deleted]

In the Middle Ages there were 3 major social classes, the Clergy, the Nobles, and the peasants. Now if the peasants were basically property of the lord and slaves, and their children were bound to the land, then how and where do the tradesmen, merchants, and doctors fall into on the social class totem. How many of them were there in comparison to the other classes? And how did they not get put into the peasantry class?

It seems to me, based on my cursory research of the topic, that Germany was incredibly close to completing the Berlin-Baghdad railway, which would have won them the very economic prosperity that Britain was afraid of.

Why throw all of that away for Austria-Hungary, especially given that the Triple Entente was not known to Germany?