I think 200 women were accused and 20 executed, but what caused other people to accuse them?

Were these women doing eastern folk remedies that people mistook for witchcraft? or were their meals just too salty?

Who were the women accused? social loaners that lived on the outskirts of the town? or were they just regular married women going to church every Sunday like the rest of them?

Where they described anywhere aside from norse sagas? Also a bonus question - did vikings met any resistance at all during their raids? I know monks were not exactly fighters but were there at least some militia in the villages?

Title

Was it based entirely on time-in? Subjective observations by their immediate supervisors? Or was it like a modern, Western army and based on mandated 'courses' and qualifications?

If someone can answer this question regarding Republic armies, I'm interested in those as well; I just didn't want my question to be super-vague.

Thanks in advance!

Was this change purely one of social convention, and in theory there was no actual change to technical religious allowance, or can we point to a time where it was decided, "Hey, single pairs only please!"

For example, the world commonly refers to Korea and Japan with these English language names. But Koreans refer to their nation in their own language as hangul (or something similar) and Japan says nihong (knee-hoe-ngg) in their native language. I think China has different names in Mandarin/Cantonese/etc. too.

My question is, why did these Asian countries ever feel the need to use a foreigner friendly nickname for their nation?

Surely they would have tried to take what arguably would have been the jewel of the Hellenic world, a key religious city to the orthodox, not to mention a strategic point to hold. It seems like they would never have had a chance though and probably would have gone over as badly as if America dropped an atomic bomb on Tokyo in terms of the other side's reaction.

Was her experience an exception or broadly supported by historical evidence?

EDIT:

I know that many people were forced to be unpleasant towards Jews, including other Jews. But did the Poles behave any different from other unwilling participants in Poland or elsewhere.

Were there instances of Poles killing Jews independent of Nazi orders? More, the same, or less than in other occupied territories?

Were the Poles, on the whole, less, equal, or more cooperative in rounding up the Jews than other nations?

I often read about new discoveries of human bones that are hundreds or even thousands of years old. I understand digging bones is how we learn how our ancestors lived but a small part of me feels its almost disrespectful and wonders what happens to their bones after being discovered?

OKAY, So when Kate Middleton was pregnant, there was a law passed that meant if the child was a girl, it would be able to be queen.

But England has had quite a lot of queens. What exactly did that law mean and how did past queens become queens if it wasn't possible for females to inherent the title until recently?

Hello everyone, I recently discovered Dan Carlin and his podcasts. I really like listening to them while running , cooking etc. Planning on finishing them all in the very near future.

My question is, can anyone recommend more podcasts, websites, on any historical subject, please ? I am a complete beginner when it comes to audio books and podcasts so all this is very new and exciting! Any advice will be helpful and appreciated!

Thank you in advance!

Edit: Thank you everyone so so much!! I have enough stuff here to last me for a very long time !! Cheers everyone!

I am a college student that's freaking out a little bit, I have to write an essay about the crusades and whether or not they were a failure. I understand that it was Pope Urban's plan to reunite the east and western Christendom. I know quite a bit about the fourth crusade and I am stating that the fourth crusade was a complete failure because the cemented the anti-latin sentiments coming from the Greeks in Constantinople, making the great schism permanent. Urban's second part of his plan was to make the Holy Land accessible to all by way of crusades. What my question is, is why after the first crusade and the establishment of a Kingdom of Jerusalem, why could the crusaders not hold the Holy Land

Let's say during the time of Charles V, before Hungary and Bohemia really complicate the picture. Was everything ruled from Vienna? Or did the constituent duchies have their own governments? Did this differ before the Privilegium Maius?

I read it many times that America was founded by puritans, who crossed the Atlantic on Mayflower and landed in Massachusetts.

But recently it was pointed out to me that Virginia was dominated the Anglican Church, Maryland, by Catholics, and Penn by Quakers.

I'm confused now. Why the founding of America is so often linked to the arrival of Puritans, if they were just one among several religious groups and limited geographically to just one area (Northeast)?

I'm genuinely confused because at one side he abuses his power as president, going against the supreme court's ruling and vetoing laws, but on the otherhand doggedly force policies that might help the common people

I've heard that quote credited to many people, such as Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Goebbels, but it seems hard to confirm where that quote originated.

I read that the Islamic world turned inwards/became isolationist as a result of the Mongol invasion. Was this reaction peculiar to Islam? Did India and China experience similar developments as a result of Mongol rule? Did the area benefit in any way from from the silk road, did the Mongol rule have any positive aspects for the region? What have the Mongols ever done for us?

[deleted]