I am very interested in how Europe became "even more Christian" after already being converted to Christianity.

What I mean is not only syncretism of pagan and christian beliefs and lingering of old pagan traditions, something that the Christian clergy surely liked to pretend doesn't exist, but also how secular pratices became "religionized".

For example, I heard how in in (the christian part of) Spain marriage was something secular and where it slowly developed into a very religious festivity. Can anyone confirm that? Were they more steps to it? For example was it maybe first an ex-post-facto "blessing" of the newly wedded?

That is not the only thing, but you will also notice how the Frankish kings were known to have a lot of mistresses and didn't seem to take Christianity very serious. When did that develop into the incredible disdain for bastards in the medieval age?

I am sure this topic is kinda controversial to some Christians, because I can imagine how they don't want to really think about how "Christianity" changed doctrine or practices and I think generally religious people like to always think that their religion has something pure, stable, uncorruptable and unchanging to them.

Anyway so we have syncretism, secular marriage and bastardy. I can't think of much else, except maybe if you know something about sex between men and other men(or young adolescent males), I would like to hear it. I'm sure the clergy itself always saw it as an abomination, but I am more interested in opinions outside that group. I didn't call it homsexuality, because that is a concept that didn't exist in the medieval times.

I just wanted to add that having a small church in every village, baptism, marriage, mass, giving every festivity a christian twist, etc makes me think about how that can be seen as measures to remind the population that they are Christians indeed.

I saw in a number of documentaries that said that nobles eat pigeons because chicken was expensive. Why were pigeons cheap and chicken not?

Long story short. I was confronted by 2 African-American women telling me I was a "fake Egyptian". They told me that they were the actual descendants of the Ancient Egyptian civilization.

I don't know if that's relevant but I'm an Egyptian from Coptic descent (Christian Orthodox Church in Egypt). I don't know if us and Muslims had a different route.

Is is true? I've never came across that view before and never thought about it. I always assumed the population and the pharaohs were dark skinned (caramel/arab-like), but not "black" like West Africans. I know the population was diverse though (slaves, merchants and so on could be black?).

[deleted]

I just watched a lecture on this conflict in which the speaker said that : US & UK financially supported Japan. Moreover, western societies and especially socialist parties supported the japanese.

He was obviously very biased however (talking about anti-russian sentiment to still linge today, saying that that the americans were "punished" in WW2 for their financial support to Japan and that "there was a justice") so I'm really skeptikal about those claims. However, I also know very little about the topic to disclaim it.

What did John Wood do to get executed exactly? Every story I've read is a bit different from the next.

Would of it been a make or break scenario for any of the allies if they didn't receive this assistance?

I know that the HRE is known to be a very decentralized state because of many religious problems and problems relating to the succession of the throne. But, did the HRE show any potential for being a centralized state?

I'm an AP student where I have studied World History and American History and I just wanted to know if the textbooks that I am given (Princeton Review, AMSCO, etc.) are accurate books to study history.

i.e. Monday(first day of the week) in culture1 getting synchronized with Monday*(first day of the week) in culture2.

[deleted]

I've heard about rescuing Mussolini but that's all..