This is a question regarding Covid-19 specifically, but in my lifetime I've seen the "anti-vax" movement grow. Is being "anti-vax" a historically frequent occurrence or is it an anomaly?

If knowledgeable users were made aware of questions that they can answer, we might see a greater number of questions answered.

For example, I'm sure there is someone knowledgeable here who can answer my question regarding Catholicism in England, but may not have seen or been made aware of my post.

Maybe this is unjustiable to implement, just an idea.

Wouldn't it make them harder to see in battle or at night

Looking for swedish armor/uniforms from between the swedish viking age and late middle age. cant find what soldiers and knights in sweden wore during battle.

After the Franco-Prussian war, the Imperial Territory of Alsace-Lorraine was annexed into the German Empire as a new federal territory, legally separate from all the others.

My question is, why wasn't it annexed directly into the Kingdom of Prussia as a province?

Looking for a beginner’s guide to different types and styles of Mesoamerican ceramics. The field looks a little complicated and daunting just diving in with zero context.

The British Parliament had already been around for centuries by their time. I don't recall hearing them (in the history I do know) complain about Parliament itself, just that they had no representation in it. Did they find a parliamentary system lacking in some way?

Was it not until modern medicine? Or is it still an ongoing issue?

(rephrased from an earlier question)

I am wanting to explore my interest in history from palaeolithic to late Bronze Age. I simply cannot ignore how giddy I get learning about our ancestors. Especially interested in Mesopotamia; Sumer and Akkad, etc… l. My Question is: since my local university only offers courses back to 1600 AD. What do you all suggest for distance learning?

I don’t plan on swapping careers or anything. I just want to learn.

Thanks in advance

I want to understand how critical this period was in advancing human understanding and what went wrong.

Why did Pompey and Crassus allow Caesar an equal share of the power.

Crassus had money, Pompey was popular and had a lot of conquests already, but what did Caesar bring that was so special for them?

So it is known as that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been exposed as a fabricated antisemitic text by the British newspaper The Times in 1921 and the German Frankfurter Zeitung in 1924. Yet, when the Nazis came into power in 1933, it is taught in German schools as if factual. What did the Nazi have to say about their antiseptic text being exposed as a fraud? Do they just shrug it off as just some left wing or Jewish newspaper trying to dispel the myth that Jews aren’t a dangerous race in their propaganda? Or are there more reasons behind the fact that it was used in schools and even neofascist, fundamentalist and antisemitic groups to this day?

Eric Jager's book, which provides the source, is slightly more confusing than the screenplay, saying:

The prosecution and punishment of rape often depended on the victim’s social class and political clout. In France women convicted of lesser crimes like theft were often put to death, while many males guilty of rape escaped with a mere fine—compensation that was often paid not to the victim herself but to her father or husband, since rape counted less as sexual violence against a woman than as a property crime against her male guardian. Legal records show that clerics, men holding church office, numbered disproportionately among those accused of rape and that they often escaped serious punishment by claiming “benefit of clergy,” which entitled them to have their cases tried by the church rather than by the secular courts.

The circumstances of the crime, including the frequent absence of any witnesses, often made a charge of rape hard to prove in a court of law. And in France the female victim, no matter what her social standing, high or low, could not bring charges in the first place without the cooperation of her husband, father, or male guardian. Many rape victims, threatened afterward by their attackers with shame and dishonor, chose to keep silent rather than risk ruining their reputation, or that of their family, by making the crime public. So if in theory rape was a serious crime for which the law provided heavy penalties, in practice it often went unpunished, unprosecuted, and even unreported.

What work is Jager's "in theory" doing here? What is the nominal attitude on the books? Was it the case that it was de jure a crime against the woman but de facto treated as a crime against the man? Or was it de jure also a crime against the man for "violation of property"?

Moreover, was rape unique in that a woman was required to have her male guardian as a sponsor to bring the charge before the court, or was this a case with all criminal (or civil?) charges?

Do we know if in ancient times in Egypts, greeks, Romans or even Aztecs cut their nails? Do we know at what time in our history we started to cut them?

In 1861, there were 19 free states and 15 slave states. The US Constitution requires that amendments be passed with two thirds support from the Senate and House, and three quarters of the state legislatures. I know the basic history — the slave states were concerned that the free states would admit more and more free states to the US, and eventually there would be enough to amend the Constitution. Hence, there was Bleeding Kansas, the caning of Charles Sumner, etc. But in order for three quarters of the states to be free states, the US would have had to admit 26 free states, giving it a total of 60 states, which the U.S. doesn't even have in 2021. Was this at all plausible? Even if the border states changed their positions — and I suspect that's a big assumption — the US would still have to admit 10 free states, which would be a long way to go. It doesn't seem like the abolitionists were remotely close to amending the Constitution in 1861. What lawful threat to slavery were the slave states anticipating when they seceded? Why exactly did they secede?

If I remember correctly many Roman emperors were actually adopted by the emperor some time before his death to ensure a succession. Did the Byzantine Empire operate in a similar fashion?

Why don't we have different "dialects" of math? I'm sure math popped up everywhere and was "invented" by many different people around the world, each of these people would have assigned a different symbol to represent 1, 2, 3, etc. As well as symbols to represent things like times and division.

When and how did we all agree on how mathmatics was written? Why does X mean times and why does 1 mean one? Who decided these things?

It'd all ultimately be describing the exact same thing, but same for spoken languages. You can translate between languages and keep the same meaning.

So why didn't mathmatics develop the way language has? Or maybe the better question is why hasn't language developed the way mathmatics has?