My favorite song ever, American Pie, puts a very heavy emphasis on it. But how much did this event actually affect the evolution of rock music?

If not, then why is there a lack of ancient records about women rising up/protesting/rebellion/dissatisfaction if there was some sort of unfairness in ancient times?

This is the passage in question:

"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

I find it odd that Paul explicitly says that roman men have sex with each other but he doesn't say the same for women, which makes me wonder what could these unnatural sex acts possibly be

They must have gone days or weeks at a time with no combat missions to fly - or at least, very few (e.g. combat air patrols).

So considering there must have been dozens of them on each ship, just eating up supplies, what were they used for when they weren't being pilots?

Or are my assumptions wrong?

Inspired by a recent post that was removed, this is something I never really thought of before. Is there an extensive history of people trimming or shaving their pubic hair around the world or is this more of a recent development?

I've become quite well-acquainted with the contours of the historiographical debate about Catharism. Scholars like Robert Moore and Mark Pegg seem to think that the Cathars didn't exist and were purely a product of clerical paranoia (and a good measure of opportunism from the French monarchy wanting to expand its power into the south), while historians like Malcolm Barber and Peter Biller see them as an authentic sect. A lot of the debate is very understandable, but what seems weird is that it doesn't seem to have many parallels elsewhere. No one seems to doubt that late antique heresies like Arianism, Nestorianism and Donatism weren't authentic movements. And late medievalists don't doubt that the Fraticelli, Lollardy and the Hussites were real. Even for Catharism's eastern parallel (and, as some used to think, its source) Bogomilism, Byzantinists and experts on eastern Christianity seem to be in no doubt about its existence, though mind you Byzantine studies does have a reputation for being quite a conservative field, as Anthony Kaldellis has complained. All of this just feels very weird. Why is it that experts on medieval religion approach Catharism with daggers drawn in a way they just don't for any other medieval heresy.

From what I have read Hitler always called himself a German, but he was born in Austria and his parents were Austrians. Why did he call himself a German? He even served in a Bavarian regiment during WW1 and that was almost certainly a mistake on behalf of the Bavarian authorities.

Did the Germans think of him as an Austrian or a German?

I'm a big fan of the late medieval period, something not often represented in media. Yesterday I watched the movie "The last duel" and I thought it showed costumes quite adequate as possible as it is for Hollywood movies. Anyone with more expertise wants to comment a bit on that?

All I hear about in history of Vikings is during the 800s where they invaded Britain. They had their typical iron helmet, wooden shield, spear, chainmail and sword.

What did they wear during the 1200s to 1400s when Europe was full of kettle helmets, knights in shining armour, crossbows and pikes? Did they still fight primarily as infantry in shield walls? Or did they just copy the Germans, French, English?

The biggest source of origin of White Americans is Germany, even more so than England or Ireland. Obviously these German migrants to America would have spoken German.

Was German a widely spoken language in America? I believe the Midwest has the most German Americans.

Was German widely spoken in New England and in 'The South'?

Australia: Port Arthur massacre; National Firearms Agreement.

Canada: École Polytechnique massacre; gun control legislation after a few years.

New Zealand is outside of the twenty years rule, but the Christchurch massacre led to a similar effort.

All of these countries are Anglophone, majority white, historically Protestant, and generally similar to America in a lot of ways; politically, socially, historically, etc.

So why was there no similar effort after the Columbine massacre?

More generally, what was Gallic society like at the time? Caesar depicts them as a tribal people, yet they seem to have been able to mobilize armies of tens of thousands of soldiers. So what's the real deal?

Hello everyone,

I apologize in advance for maybe going into this too blue-eyed but I am just an enthusiast with no historical background. Lately, I have been very interested in the history of the German Empire and WW1. I would like to learn more about how this all 'came to be' and want to look further into the past to get better context. However, there's such a vast selection of books that I'm overwhelmed and I don't know where a good point to start would be. The furthest I went back so far was a biography of Frederick the Great.

My 3 main points of interest are

1. Military History
2. Society (How did people think and feel about current events back then)
3. Geopolitics at the time

Can you recommend books that help me understand better how this patchwork of rural states turned into the German Empire of 1871? I speak German as well so I'm not limited to books in the English language only.

Thank you!

I'm writing a piece of fiction based around the final battle of Shiroyama. I've done a bit of research around the rebellion (which lasted from January 27th, to September of that year.)

But I'm wondering what exactly the Plan was of the Rebellion in the first place. Was there a specific reason why Saigō Takamori went against the Meji government?

Prior to the Hebrew language revival that commenced in the late 19th Century, Hebrew had been dead as a natural language for approx. 2000 years. Through this time Hebrew was used as a liturgical language and the language of prayer by the Jewish people. However, when the Hebrew language revival began in Israel, new arrivals to Israel required Hebrew language classes; these classes continue to this day. It was noted that Ashkenazi Jews struggled to acquire the Hebrew language more than Sephardic and Arabic Jews. But shouldn't Jewish people have already had knowledge of Hebrew by reading their sacred texts and vocalising prayers? Did the average Jewish person have a working knowledge of Hebrew prior to the Hebrew revival, or was it similar to the use of Latin in the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II - when many people knew the Latin words of the prayers said in Mass, but not their exact meaning, and knew no other Latin?

I know this question may seem straightforward in the greater scheme of things, as I know research is pro dominantly used through looking at primary sources, as well as secondary. But being a complete amateur here, I always wondered how historians are able to ask and draw completely new conclusions apart from what is already written through secondary sources. For example, Chinese history I feel a lot of concepts/topics have been discussed and evaluated hundreds of times, that there is already a general agreement of what happened and how it happened. Ultimately, there is little to be added or researched in a sense, that’s the general idea I have. For this reason, my main question is how do historians continue to find to new questions to ask and answer if the general concordance is already established by other historians. Maybe I’m missing something here and if I am I would really appreciate if someone could help me out. I’ve always found historians truly fascinating and enriching to learn from them. This is my main question/misconception, I would really appreciate it if someone could help me out. Thank you.

Before WW2, we see plenty of Communist parties taking power and giving their countries names like the Soviet Union, the Hungarian Soviet Republic, the Slovak Soviet Republic, and the Bavarian Soviet Republic. After the war, states named themselves differently; namely they removed 'soviet' from their names (ex. Hungarian People's Republic, People's Republic of China, and German Democratic Republic). My question is, why did so many Communist countries stop using the term 'soviet' in their titles?

I only know very broad strokes like most kennel clubs were formed in that time and that's when most breeds first became distinguished, but what were the reasons for it? Was it a general cultural phenomenon or just a dedicated group of hobbists? Anything at all on the subject would be helpful.

If my knowledge of the vikings is correct (which it probably isnt'), they had a relatively large trade/conquering presence, so I can only assume they had a decent understanding of the geography within their sphere of influence. Where would the geography of the Americas fit in on their maps, and why didn't this knowledge carry over into the era of Columbus?