Catholics, as far as I understand, were largely unified by papal authority, and the Orthodox by the patriarchate. The plethora of Protestant denominations are an enigma to me, however.

I'm not even concerned with doctrines and practices, or with how religion shaped international relations and politics. What I want to understand is whether the average Calvinist would see Arminians and Zwinglians as heretics or as brothers in faith, and whether an Anglican would consider himself to be closer in kinship to a Lutheran or to a Calvinist, and how remnant Hussites viewed Protestants in general. So basically I'm trying to figure out whether some of these denominations can be grouped together in the sense that the man on the cobbled street would feel a sense of community with others belonging to different denominations.

(Also, is it correct that the Catholic-Protestant schism ceased to be a major factor in most of Europe only around the late 19th century?)

My understanding is that matches were invented in the early 1800's, so how were fires for cooking/lighting ignited before then?

I have seen pictures of women in the middle east 30 or 40 years ago wearing similar clothing to western counterparts. Was there a long period where women were not required to dress like such and recent regimes are the reason for the comeback? Have these traditions been revived as another tool to oppress women in these areas and many who defend it are simply ignorant of these item's history?

Much like the Nazis infamously using psuedo-science to defend their concepts of race and superiority, I have heard that the Soviet Union (and perhaps other Marxist-Leninist regimes) also twisted science according to their own ideology. I was even once told a very long time ago by an older Russian immigrant that growing up he remembered "[the state] twisted everything to support their ideology: history, science...."

However, I have never heard any specific examples of Soviet ideologically-tainted junk science.

SPQR is a popular history book I recently finished and thoroughly enjoyed. Going through it I noticed the use of loaded language here and there as well as the off-hand dismissal of certain notions. Since I don't really know much about the field, I thought it'd be wise to get a second opinion here.

What are Beard's biases? Is SPQR actively trying to sell a particular narrative? And does it omit any particularly important parts/aspects of Roman history/society?

I'm specifically curious as to whether any members of the West German National Football Team that defeated the Hungarian 'Magical Magyars' in the 1954 World Cup final had been involved militarily in World War 2.

I imagine that the majority of able-bodied men would have been conscripted, but I guess my question begs another: were Germany's top athletes excluded from conscription during the war?

How'd they prevent such large metal machines from rusting?

It seems impossible to me, unless the whole thing was made from stainless steel. Even today, plenty of steel tools can still rust to ruination...

I was reading a lot about Vichy France, and a consistent theme I saw in the readings was how the French government/population was incredibly divided at the time. There appeared to be a large number of far-left/borderline communists in France and just as many far-right/borderline fascists. Why was the populus so split at the time? Was it just extreme reactions at a time of economic crisis, or is there anther reason for the disunity in France? Finally, is this diviseness partially responsible for France's quick defeat in World War 2?

Is so when did it start and stop? Where the singers simply a scene in a movie or was there a larger musical tradition surrounding open flames on the city streets?

I have consulted the recommended reading list compiled by this subreddit, but most of the books during this period either focus on WW II or FDR. Despite my username, I am interested in histories of the country that do not take FDR as their starting point. The perfect book for me would be one that doesn't focus too heavily on the economic policies of the New Deal or the War per se. I want to learn about the day to day experiences of ordinary Americans. If possible, I would like to access books that are not simply regional in scope, BUT I would gladly accept suggestions that might allow me to build a composite view of my own. These books need not be holistic either. Maybe there is a really good book on Americans and newsreels, for instance, that doesn't focus on FDR or WW II.

To put this in perspective, I'm sure that in many years hence, most histories of the early twentieth century will focus exclusively on 9/11 and the war on terror. Yet, while these are important, U.S. citizens were not wholly preoccupied by these. They experienced the rise of social media, followed the death of Pope John Paul II, and worried about Wal*Mart pushing out smaller businesses, among other things.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[deleted]

I've heard that these two parties switched their ideals over time, and I was wondering how this happened. Who drove these changes on each side?

Browsing subs like /r/technology and /r/gadgets, it becomes apparent that even tech-savvy people can be luddites who are dismissive of new tech.

How was it like in the Middle Ages? Did warriors try to always have the most advanced weaponry and armour? Do we have accounts of people in t past dismissing arising tech? Has there ever been a desire to honor 'traditional ways'? Kinda like the Samurai in "The Last Samurai"?

I'm referring to historical materialism mainly, a great example of such an analysis is Engel's Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State. I suppose some factual parts of it are outdated, but is his methodology?

Can history be explained by the class struggle and historical materialism? I'm not saying it would be factual, but is it accurate in explaining the changes in economic and political systems?

Thanks in advance for your answers

With the House sit-in being blocked from TVs with the Ryan ordering the cameras off, and the lack of cameras in the Supreme Court, I was wondering about the history of recording government in the US. Has it been challenged in courts? Who's discretion is it up to? Were there advocates?

I know there are cemeteries for World War I and II, but are there monuments for individuals?