I have read many times (but in scant detail) that torture was illegal in England during the Middle Ages, without the King's permission. This is (apparently) one of the reasons that witch burnings were less common in England than other states. I'm interested in how this law/custom came about and when, and what it defined as torture (for example, did beatings count). I'm also interested in whether there were similar laws in other European states, or if this was a uniquely English rule. Also, did this apply to all of the King's holdings (ie Normandy, Wales, Ireland) or merely to the Kingdom of England? Finally, when discussing this with a friend, he mentioned he'd heard there was one English King who didn't allow any torture whatsoever. Does anyone know (if that's true) who it was?

In the movie Catch me if you can. Tom Hanks, as an FBI agent, is on a manhunt for DiCaprio, as a counterfeiter. As a non American I always assumed the Secret Service was the agency responsible for counterfeiters.

How come in Catch me if you can it is the FBI that is responsible for the counterfeiters (when DiCaprio gets caught, he gets to work at the FBI counterfeiters office).

I understand that in trials in Athens the prosecution and defense would each put forward alternative sentences that the jury would then vote for and I recently came across the suggestion that in Socrates' case it was a choice between death and free lunches and I decided to follow this up. I've now read this in a couple of places, often in sources that suggest that Socrates put forward this joke punishment and gave a defiant defense because he was purposefully trying to force the death punishment. However, I've also read that this wasn't the punishment that was officially voted on, that it was a 300 drachmae fine guaranteed by Plato, Crito, Critobulus, and Apollodorus. Does anyone know more about this? Is this a commonly held myth, a suggestion that was replaced with a fine, or the actual suggestion voted on? Does anyone know why there is this discrepancy across published history books?

All I've read about Caesar suggests that he was a cruel dictator. Why is he so revered even to this day? I've read that as a punishment he used to crucify a percentage of the legion from which a bad apple did something wrong.

The only book I've read about Scandinavian history is Sagas of the Icelanders (not exactly historically accurate, I know), and I'm having trouble finding books about early Scandinavian history at local bookstores. I'm specifically looking for overviews of pre-Viking Era Scandinavia (fine if they go into the Viking Era too) if anyone has some to recommend.

I have always understood that during the early Muslim expansion there was quite a bit of "conversion by the sword" is this true? and put in context of the times was this particularly brutal? or simply more brutality in a brutal age?

Especially after he procured it under the guise of humanitarianism.

[deleted]

I'm assuming that some time after the introduction of Christianity, slavery ceased. When and how did it happen and what were the consequences? Could the Byzantines likely have fared better against their enemies if they had kept using slaves?

How are Gridiron and Association football related? What was their common ancestor and how did the split? Is North American football a mutation of Rugby, or do they share a common ancestor that resembled the two sports but was actually different? I am basically wondering how these games evolved and how they relate to one another. If one were to make a phylogenetic chart, like a species family tree, what might it look like?

There was a comment in a thread about a 3,200 year old papyrus that started with the phrase "given the Egyptians fascination with the stars..." and it led me to wonder if dry, desert societies were more involved with astronomy than societies in humid, overcast regions... or societies that grew up in rainforests where their view of the sky was often blocked by the forest's canopy.

Is there any data on this (as opposed to just a logical acceptance that this would be the case)?

Any type of subtopic welcome-- culture, politics, etc. Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

Just left the Field Museums new Greek exhibit and I never knew Phillip didn't conquer Sparta. Why not?

Recently saw a few posts involving the remains of buried adults and children and wondered if these people would be alright with their remains being disturbed regardless of the time passed or historical educational gains we could make from studying them.

What did they do during their duty hours? What were their fortifications like and how porous was the actual border? Was it a solid wall like Hadrian's wall or was it more like a series of outposts? How did they communicate with each other in case of an incursion?

I read somewhere that Taiwan was first seen (by Westerners) by the Portuguese, who referred to it as "Ilha Formosa." But the Portuguese never colonized the island - their competitors did. Why did their name stick?

Basically, what I'm interested is how likely is all that to be true, I'm interested in all larger conflicts in the 20th century, like WW1, WW2, Cold War.

I heard somewhere that some countries and their intelligence agencies release top secret documents and things like that after some years, 50 or smth like that (it's highly possible that I am mistaken, so correct me if that's the case).

So is it possible that some of them are not going to be released ever, and I mean the huge ones, like, what happened after some decisive battle, what happened to some POWs, some crimes against humanity in occupied countries. Some espionage things from Cold War. Some reports of battle about how many casualties were there, or weren't. How many ships/tanks/planes were destroyed.

As for me, I have always wondered if those battles in Pacific in WW2 were such a disasters for IJN, like where they lost zillion ships and planes, and US lost like 2 destroyers and 3 boats.

What are your opinions on this? Are we getting the wrong history, beacuse “History is written by the victors.”?

Thanks in advance to whoever replies. :)