What was happening out in the countryside that made it so people found the conditions of the factories and cities preferable during the Industrial Revolution? What forced people to make the decision to endure life in the factories and cities?

Religious beliefs are strongly felt and key to people’s every day lives. How could it be that this shift was so large even among the general population?

And of course why was this change so large in England and Scotland but not in Ireland? If the argument is one of brute force, the monarchy was never shy of using that across the Irish Sea.

Civilians were killed, they were innocent, anyone has any idea if it was a war crime?

Despite the fact that few historians, save for those in pay of or beholden to the Chinese Communist party state and those who sympathize with the official Chinese state nationalist ideology, would take the "century of humiliation" myth seriously, the myth still appears to remain popular amongst non-Historians in the West as an oft-invoked idea when topics such as geopolitics, economy, and military in relation to the Chinese imperium or her subjects were discussed, sometimes even by people who were otherwise experts on geopolitics. Why?

How have historians not been able to dispel such myths and disseminate their knowledge on the historical reality despite all the great works, including those by the school of New Qing historiography revealing the dual nature of the Qing Empire and debunking the "Sinicization" myth that have been written on the subject?

During the American Revolution, support for the Revolution was strongest in New England, and eventually, support for independence from Britain was the strongest there out of any of the thirteen colonies, later U.S. states in the American Union; so why was opposition to the War of 1812 against Great Britain the strongest in New England as well?

To be clear, by "inconsistent" I don't just mean variations by region or dialect or social subset, which of course have always been present in every language community. I'm referring to the sort of variation we see within single works by the same author (e.g., Chaucer).

As far as I know, the Roman Republic's decline began with the dictatorship of Sulla, continued with the dictatorship of Caesar and famously ended with the beginning of the rule of Octavian as the first Augustus.

What these eras seem to have in common is rising inequality between the upper classes and the lower classes.

As far as I know land reform was one of the biggest political issues throughout most of this time, with people like Caesar wanting to take land from the upper classes away and give it to the lower classes. Those who were supposed to benefit the most from this policy were of course supposed to be his soldiers. Caesar was not generous because he had a good heart, but that doesn't mean that these issues weren't very important to the people. That's why Caesars tactics worked afterall.

There were of course also the Gracchi brothers with their famous plans for land reform.

Anyway, what I want to get at is that apparently inequality was so high that people were willing to support anti-democratic authoritarians if they just promised to lessen said inequality through land reform and the like.

My question then is: How correct is this? I honestly do not know a lot about Roman history. These are just a few tidbits that I picked up in various YouTube videos and such. That's why I want to know if they are true or not.

Please also point out if anything I said was wrong.

As a fun way to unite my passion for medicine and history, my reddit username is based on the Physician "Antistius" that according to Suetonius in the "Lives of the Twelve Caesars" was the guy that performed his autopsy, stating: " And of so many wounds none turned out to be mortal, in the opinion of the physician Antistius, except the second one in the breast." however, upon trying to find more information and different sources about Antistius and Caesar's autopsy, i came out empty-handed, so my question is:

Do we know anything about this physician Antistius and how he performed Caesar's autopsy?

Fiance & I were discussing family leave in the US & stumbled upon the claim that paid family leave was adopted in Europe on an effort to encourage more white pregnancies in response to post colonial immigration. What, if any, truth is there behind this claim?

Given that a history PhD seems basically useless in the job market.

• Before the invention of the printing press (:
• Handwritten English translation Documents* The translator must have been alive pre-printing press

not only for the Mass or Divine Liturgy, but for all other sacraments, blessings, sacramentals, and rites of every kind as well.*

-Ritual Function books, sacramentaries, Roman missal, etc. It’s possible that these primary sources are scarce, so any suggestions of leads would be really helpful to me. Thank you (:

{End of Post}

That was the simplified version of what I’m interested in. For extra context into my question and interest… this is what I posted in R/Catholicism (it has not gone over so well so far lol) :

I want to read the the primary source text of every document that was authorized to be used for Mass or Divine Liturgy, all other sacraments, blessings, sacramentals, and rites of every kind as well (Pre-printing press). from the creation of the Roman church in England up to (1400) where should I begin?

• Before the invention of the printing press (:
• Handwritten English translation Documents* The translator must have been alive pre-printing press *If the original English translation is not available, can we make a note on the name of the text and it’s date of conception?

not only for the Mass or Divine Liturgy, but for all other sacraments, blessings, sacramentals, and rites of every kind as well.

-Ritual Function books, sacramentaries, Roman missal, etc.

I’m not interested in any explanations of the politics or movements or narratives or historical figures from this time. 1.) I need the *barebones context of the primary source document and why theologians believe that the document is truly what it is purported to be. 2.) The original Sacramentary with the prayers, one or more books for the Scriptural readings, and one or more books for the antiphons and other chants. *Full Missal

I was listening to a live stream mass service this morning, when we began to pray the confíteor, suddenly I was awestruck by how great this prayer was. So, this led me to look up its history online. I found an article where I learned learned that Until 1969, the Confiteor was spoken twice at the beginning of Mass, after the recitation of Psalm 42/43, once by the priest and once by the server(s) or by the deacon and subdeacon. It was also said, once only (not by the priest), before Communion was distributed to the faithful, until Pope John XXIII in his 1960 Code of Rubrics had it omitted.

that there was also an alternate version: I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you, brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed: through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and you, brethren, to pray for me to the Lord our God

I learned that From 1604 to 1962, the Roman Missal also prescribed that, at the words mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, those reciting the Confiteor should strike their breast three times. Saint Augustine of Hippo said: "No sooner have you heard the word 'Confiteor', than you strike your breast. What does this mean except that you wish to bring to light what is concealed in the breast, and by this act to cleanse your hidden sins?"

I was just shocked by the fact that I looked up something that I thought would be have a simple story behind it, come to find out it’s actually pretty complex. I’m a history buff, so when I became interested in learning about ancient Egypt, instead of reading some modern historians interpretation, I turned to Herodotus of Halicarnassus and his account of Egypt. (Earliest surviving primary text). When I wanted to know about the education systems of the early Roman empire, I turned to Pliny the elder. In the same way, I want to start at our earliest recorded accounts or primary text.

Thank you so much! (:

Looking at the events that led up to the start of World War I, it seems like it would have been strictly a European affair. The US seemed to be content with just isolating themselves to the Western Hemisphere. What were the interests that the US was trying to protect? Was it just because their allies in UK and France asked for aid?

I understand that things such as naiads had existed, as well as how shoggoths were able to shapeshift, but when was the specific concept of a slime girl created? Is the origin of the slime girl older than the 2011 NSFW visual novel "Monster Girl Quest"?

I'm listening through the Revolutions Podcast currently and was curious what cultural, political, and social differences let the British monarchy remain into the Age of Democracy while the French crown was not able to do the same.

Any information regarding other monarchies during the 19th century (specifically 1848 year of Revolutions) would be greatly appreciated as well.

Thank you!

Reading Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the English people has taught me alot about the important monasteries of Iona and Lindisfarne but how did they become so important given they where in such remote and isolated places, surly this would reduce their influence and hamper the work of monks trying to spread Christianity during the early middle ages. I'm hoping someone could give me an answer and perhaps some more information on the reasons behind such choices of location.