Throughout history we've seen how important it was for a woman to be unspoiled untill she married and found a husband. At what point in history did it stop being important that the woman should be a virgin?

I know it's still early to ask it, but so far we have some new info and trailers released. Right now they are playing on a live stream.

Google is failing me, especially in terms of how specifically people perished. Was it from collectivization, famine, execution? The estimates available seem uncertain, even from reputable sources. Thanks for any help.

I suspect some went of their own volition, but I was curious if the leadership of the United Irishmen/IRB/IRA/and similar groups made a concerted appeal to Irish groups living outside of Ireland/rest of the UK to return and fight for the Irish Republican cause. Did they make a distinction between first generation Irish migrants or their descendants? Was there a particular time period or conflict where this recruiting more prevalent than not? Any info from any time period is welcome, but I'm mostly thinking in terms of major milestones such as the 1798 Rebellion, the Easter Rising, and the Troubles.

Growing up in Norway, WWII has always dominated the historical narrative. What little education I've received on WWI has been limited to our neutrality, but I've often heard that if the war hadn't ended when it did, Britain would have invaded Norway in order to use the coastline. Can this be verified in any way, or is it pure speculation?

Was thinking about this in the shower. When people think of alien this is one of the first images, where did it come from/originate??

I only ask this here because I assume there is some ancient text where this depiction is shown. Just like how we see vikings today, with those horned helmets.

For example, at Agincourt, apparently many French POWs were killed in retaliation to the French killing non-combatants during/prior to the battle. I've also heard that POWs would sometimes be executed simply because there was nothing to do with them. The army didn't want to deal with a potential uprising, or escapees reporting their movements/position to the enemy.

If an army in the medieval/ancient era were to kill hundreds/thousands of POWs or captives, how would this be done? Was it even done at all? I know the Aztecs would sacrifice captives. But what about European and Asian armies?

Thanks.

Everyone knows of the Colosseum and the Roman games but were there any other ancient societies that had anything comparable or were the Romans really one of a kind?

My understanding is that at Williamsburg, the governor tried to remove the gunpowder the magazine after Patrick Henry's "liberty of death" speech, which caused militia from the countryside to march on the city. After heated negotiations the militia dispersed, and the governor fled in the dead of night for Norfolk because he read the political tea leaves. After a few months of battle, Norfolk fell and the British troops evacuated Virginia (I'm sure this is pretty jumbled up).

My question is really several questions. Was this a fairly typical series of events? How did this work within the town itself--would the townspeople have viewed this as a militia occupation or were they the people in the militia? And in areas that didn't have the opportunity for "events" because there were no governors or British soldiers, how did they become "revolutionary"? Would the people of a small town come together and have a big debate about whether to join the uprising or stay with the Crown?

I feel that the events of Massachusetts have sort of choked out the events happening everywhere else-at least in general education.

(side question: if Virginia was by far the wealthiest and most populous colony, why was its independence essentially uncontested after 1775?)

If they were used, how did they solve problems such as air pressure removing the flame?

I imagine having a supply train thousands of kilometers is not practical for an ancient army. Did he loot? Did he force conquered enemies to provide supplies?

I mean their name should be the opposite, what went down when they were deciding the names?

I'm aware of the origins of the Western concept of racism going back to the slave trade and having some background with the purity of blood in post-Reconquista Spain. However, reading the Arabian Nights, pretty much none of the characters that are described as dark-skinned are depicted in a positive manner, unless they are bodyguard slaves - and then they are typically insulted, or can't really think that well.

I know Islam was embraced by many living in sub-Saharan Africa, and Ethiopia even sheltered the Prophet. I am reading a modern translation of the work too (recent Penguin Classics) so it's not just some Victorian-era translation. So would a history of racism have a start here, before the Western concept of race developed?

edit: Is racism in the Middle East during this period just not something that was written about(explained in theological terms or codified into law?)

I recently read that Napoleon had been the man to end the Papal State's thousand year sovereignty. What was to be gained by doing that?

Like did they have their own Kathy Griffin And Anderson Cooper?

Is there any correlation of a society's level of development, values, wealth, etc and using a pictogram/alphabet? For example ancient Egypt seemed quite advanced with math, construction, and astronomy but still used pictograms.