Whenever I hear of an execution in history on TV or in a podcast, it always seemed like a bit of a spectacle. Something you could even bring your family to. Was it always like this? Was there resistance to this idea? Anyone who thought that it was wrong to have public executions?

Since this was long before germ theory, what kind of sanitary standards would doctors doing surgery and other medical practitioners have maintained? What levels of cleanliness would they have striven for?

And why would they have bothered if they had no idea that it was germs that caused infections and other troubles?

How did he communicate with the tribe leaders and such? I learned the Magellan and some of the natives actually worked together and I wonder how did they manage to understand each other.

Question see above

[deleted]

As far as I know, there was an ethnic " hierarchy " in the nazi ideology, which was Nordic/German > Southern European/Mediterranean > Slav ( and there are differences between them too ) > Black/Aboriginal, and Chinese/Japanese were somehow " Honorary Aryan ". I don't know much about this, and this is probably an oversimplification, but what did they think about Hungarians ( considering that they were allies, and Hungarians are kind of overachievers, I mean really high count of Nobel prizes or Olympic medals / capita ) ? Also, why are Japanese and Chinese " Honorary Aryan "?

I know that Sparta called the slaves helots, but I don't know the differences between the treatment and usages of the slaves in the two city-states.

In the wake of Paris' events, a lot of people here are talking about being actually at war. I would be interested to know if previous wars have also seen this kind of specific attack, right in the heart of the opponent country, or if it's something that only became possible with the rise of the technology (explosives, gun, internet, ...).

Edit : A commenter rightly noticed that the term is quite broad. In the spirit of modern definition of "terrorism", I think we can focus on the following characteristics : main target being the civilian population, and main goal being to make these populations afraid of their everyday life, of an unknown attacker that could harm them in some unexpected way.

What a great historical rip-off that would be.

Were medieval knights restricted to use some weapons, or they could buy whatever they wanted?

A bit vague, but basically, how well was the Swiss military doing about the turn of the 19th century; their characteristics, weaknesses, strengths? In the 14th-15th-16th century they were ridiculously good, I know, but since they fought less later on, it's harder to tell how good they were, or could have been.

[deleted]

I'm considering discussing his genius military tactics vs. his barbaric torture methods in an essay. However, I haven't been able to find many primary sources, which will be vital. Secondary sources aren't exactly easy to find either, from any era but especially from closer to his lifetime.

Do any of you happen to know of any sources, or anywhere I might be able to find some good ones for my topic? Thank you.

I'm trying to settle an argument with a friend.

Time and time again I read and watch media that have soldiers making reference to wars being over before Christmas, or high command promising war will be over before christmas. Sometimes it looks possible and other times it would be a pipe dream. Regardless everyone seems to believe this, yet u don't see much reference to it past WWII. What's the deal with all that?

I'm curious about this from an academic level, so to speak.

I read somewhere that evidence suggest Central Asia or the Balkans. Any pointers on where to find it?

Where they sympathetic to one side more than another? Did they think the Southern states cause was justified? Or what was their opinion/reaction overall?