1 Answers 2015-12-26
I'm wondering whether the virus' existence and the incredible amount of coverage it got in the 90s was in part responsible for the accelerating acceptance of homosexuality in the 90s (and continuing), or if the stigma associated with it actually hampered it? Or no effect?
I realise this might not be the easiest thing in the world to answer as I can't imagine what sources you'd draw on, but curious to see the evidence in either direction!
Thanks
1 Answers 2015-12-26
In Thor Heyerdahl's book, Kon-Tiki, he has the belief that the peoples of South America settled Easter Island, Pitcairn Island and all of Polynesia. Now, however, modern historians have mostly rejected this view. But the Madagascans came from Indonesia, and the Vikings reached Newfoundland, so it seems entirely plausible that the Polynesians could have come from South America. So, where did the Polynesians come from and why has the South America theory been largely discounted?
2 Answers 2015-12-26
Was it just because they were only good for carrier warfare and the Japanese were running out of carriers? Also, did the entire concept just disappear, as the Germans had also moved away from the Stuka by 1943.
5 Answers 2015-12-26
What if they have no audible reference?
1 Answers 2015-12-26
For the life of me I can't recall ever hearing of one which means they're either really good or they don't exist.
2 Answers 2015-12-26
[deleted]
1 Answers 2015-12-26
2 Answers 2015-12-26
Did people on the frontier generally know how to read and write?
1 Answers 2015-12-26
Jesus, founder of Christianity, was Jewish. What was Muhammed raised to believe before he began his prophethood?
1 Answers 2015-12-26
I was listening to In Our Time, the episode titled "The Phoenicians", and one of the guests who specializes in the subject said that the some Phoenician cities would roll the hull of newly built ships over slaves as a form of human sacrifice. Valerius Maximus is cited at the source but I have never found anything by Valerius on the Phoenicians.
Anyone know if this is true and/or any sources on it?
The podcast episode can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03szw8l
The statement about the form of human sacrifice is at 25:49-26:27
1 Answers 2015-12-26
I've been doing some research about sports and pastimes in the Elizabethan Era and I came to realize hawking / falconry was quite common. I was wondering if I could have some clarification about the domestication which I could find anywhere else.
One website states:
This sport involved catching wild fowl, and then was domesticated by covering the bird’s eyes with a needle and a strand of fiber, so the hawker could open and close its eyes. This made it very easy to domesticate the fowl so that it could hunt other birds.
But I couldn't find any others to back this up nor explain why they would do this. If anyone could further explain the reasoning, or tell me how the hawks were domesticated that would be great, thanks!
1 Answers 2015-12-26
As in why were those of African descent the majority?
2 Answers 2015-12-26
1 Answers 2015-12-26
Did they just have no animals with them, or is it just serendipity that nothing escaped or was left behind to go feral?
1 Answers 2015-12-26
I don't know why this question popped into my head, but I tried googling it and didn't find a satisfactory answer.
When a person takes their armor off, how would it be stored for later use, either the next day or for extended periods of time? Specifically, when they're at home or an inn or when they're a guest in someone else's home. Did they have, like, a mannequin or a stand that they would put it on, to keep it from getting too dinged up, (kind of like the samurai armor you see in movies, when it's on display and the samurai suddenly needs it again because reasons) or was it just set aside in its own little corner? And what about when they were traveling and had to make camp for the night? Would they just sleep in it or set it aside?
This questions is just bugging me, and I hope someone is able to answer it.
1 Answers 2015-12-26
Hello /r/AskHistorians!
I was just thinking about the historical period of the last 70ish years (essentially the WWII and post-war period), due to some reading I was doing, and I got to thinking about three categorical lists, which I haven't easily been able to find, but which I'd be extremely interested to see. If anyone can provide any of them, it would be much appreciated. The years associated with the dates of the events in question would be great (especially for the questions about historic US foreign policy) but are definitely not necessary:
List of all countries in which the US has militarily intervened or invaded since 1945 (so, any military action in excess of just building bases)?
List of all countries in which Western institutions (so, not only the US government, but European governments, groups like the IMF/World Bank/troika, etc.) have imposed austerity (by debt repayment deals, debt-related Structural Adjustment Policies, trade deals, or any other means)?
List of all countries in which the US has overthrown the executive of the state (by covert means [organizing a coup, providing funding/arms/training to opposition, assassination of the leader], military invasion, severe economic strangulation, etc.)?
I'm sure some of you would be able to come up with more thorough lists than me, and I've had trouble finding anywhere compiling those particular lists. Even if you can only provide any one of these, I'd be grateful.
Thanks very much.
1 Answers 2015-12-26
Did Carthage actually gain any authority over these cities or was it more about the gesture?
1 Answers 2015-12-26
According to some quick Googling, written installments happen after movable type's invention, which makes sense. Before that, was anything done in installments? For example, did anyone perform the equivalent of the modern sitcom on a stage? Thanks in advance for any insight.
1 Answers 2015-12-26
I know that during the Renaissance, there was a romantisication of the old Romans and the Greeks, which led to a sort of revitalisation of the noble Arts and the sciences.
In the arts, they'd paint old Hellenic heroes or legends or Gods etc... and in the sciences the focus went back to a sort of humanism and philosophising (and thinking outside of Church doctrine) and researching the natural world again.
But what came first? Was there a sort of common reason both the arts and the sciences went through the Romance period, or did a couple of artists just focus on the Romans out of shared interest, and did this spread to others artists, like make the Romans popular amongst the "cultured nobility", which then influenced mainstream culture as well?
Like a small artistic minority that got "mainstream" and impacted society overal, like we can see with (bad but modern example) NWA etc?
1 Answers 2015-12-26