So, my roommate and I were arguing over the Temporal authority over kings and governments the Roman Pontiff claimed throughout history till Vatican II. They were claiming that the Church never really claimed authority to reject or command civil policy, only that they would influence things strictly for spiritual/Church matters. I was wondering if any of you could list for me examples of papal documents, ecumenical councils making declarations on the subject, because reading from the Syllabus of Errors wasn't enough to convince them. Would you have historical examples of the Pope/the Church exercising this authority?

Was Homer’s Iliad found in an excavation site? Or is it one of those things passed down and written about to the present day? Do we have transcriptions from multiple places pieces together? Thanks for the help!

I just saw someone bring up that Engels was super rich and a Good Socialist in response to someone else online complaining about champagne socialists. I know Marx/Engels' main innovation* in socialist thought was describing it in non-utopian terms. Did people like the Chartists or other social movements of the time ever complain about Engels and Marx being Out-Of-Touch Rich Guys?

*I feel like someone's going to correct me. I'm trying to draw a distinction between utopian socialists and Marxists.

I used to read in a Robin Hood book I had in middle school where he would pretend to kidnap someone and then treat them to a nice meal and then give them a gift of money and then send them on their merry way. Always wanted the food they had especially the cheese which seemed to be soft.

I know by the standards of modern day times, the contact between Jefferson and Hemings would be classified as non consensual, for good reason. Not only was Hemings enslaved but she was also a young teenager.

I am wondering if historians classify these contacts as rape, as opposed to how contemporary society would’ve viewed it. I had a heated conversation with one of my professors, a leading Jefferson historian, who disagreed to use the term rape and non consensual because contemporary society “did not view it as such.”

What do other historians think?

How were jobs allocated in communist countries? I'm thinking of the USSR specifically, but any historical examples would be helpful. I heard that jobs were given to people by the government and regular folks had no say in the matter. I would love to know if that is correct, first. Additionally, if it is correct, I'd still like to know more about the bureaucratic process involved. Thank you!

I find it strange that a merchant's guild would also be described as great fighters. I find it stranger that some sources claim "marauders" prowled the roads between the cities. Who were these marauders, were they bandits or soldiers? And if they were simple bandits, how did Tlatoanis deal with these thieves?

Hello!

*Not a historian here*, I'm sure my question isn't too complex, I'm just seeking context and understanding. Sorry for the vagueness, I really don't know much about history or my grandfather.

My grandpa served for the U.S. during WW2, something that was sorta known in my family but never really talked about. The story as I know it is literally just "he was repairing phone lines in Norway. His brother was a POW, so they sent him somewhere safe to avoid another family tragedy." (brother survived, died early 2000s).

However, the other day I learned Norway was occupied by Germany during WW2. So now I'm confused- why would my grandpa be there? I know the Allies were briefly in Norway but it sounds like they withdrew early on.

Would someone who knows more about history care to contextualize? Thanks.

​

Edit: Thank you for the feedback and context! I'll reach out to my family and see if they have more details about him. I know he was Ashkenazi (probably "from" Germany due to our last name) and took my dad to Norway in the 70s, which suggests he was actually there earlier. Thank you!

I’ve seen my fair share of 9/11 documentaries and they always seem to skim past or completely ignore what had happened with the pentagon, I’m not someone who believes the C.I.A. planned the attacks or that the government blew the tower up, but there’s alway been that one tid-bit of info revolving the massive loss of money right before, and how the one part of the pentagon that was destroyed house records possibly related to such losses.

I'm curious as to what happened in terms of travel in those times.

As the title says. When was it a good idea, when was it best, when was it plain stupid?

If possible separate by zones, I doubt the north atlantic would have the same profile as close-to-equator pacific...

In three years of taking arabic classes I had never heard of Comoros having arabic as one of its official languages. Our professor didn't really spend a lot of time talking about it specifically but they told us arabic/islamic people traded with Comoros and from there the language settled progressively, along with a fair share of culture.

When did these first merchants arrive, and under what impulse (rather than expanding to the rest of Africa)? And why did Comoros adopt arabic (and french, but I'd assume it'd be because of colonisation) but not another african country's (like Mozambique or Tanzania) language and/or culture, despite being closer? Why did Comoros not reject arabic culture and language in favour of their own or another'

Thanks in advance for any answers, sorry if I always make it more complicated than it sounds. I had never heard of Comoros having arabic culture so it's a bit mind-baffling haha, I'm really curious to know what lead to the arabisation of Comoros and when.

My father (who struggles in vain to preach his politics to me still) has gifted me a big heavy box full of books with Wayne LaPierre's signature on the front, printed by Palladium Press. These are part of the "Library of American Freedoms". I haven't looked into them super well but from what I can understand these are all re-prints of much older books.

Are these books still historical, despite their clear endorsement by a lobbyist? I cannot find if anyone has checked to make sure the text is not altered.

That's all.

I've read some English folktales about ritual foundation sacrifice in the erection of bridges and buildings. Is there any archaeological evidence to support these stories? I would be interested in any evidence in other parts of Europe as well, and from any time period if nothing rings a bell in England.

On day one of the battle, the Confederates pushed back the Union into the hills around Gettysburg. Lee knew the hills could be used for a solid defensive position, evident by the fact he ordered his generals to take the hills if they could. So why did Lee even bother to attack the Union, rather than regroup and fight them on a more favorable battlefield?

It's not like the Confederates were not in a position to retreat/regroup. They had just won the first day of battle, had control of Gettysburg, and could easily order a withdrawal. It wouldn't be hard to find the "battle to end them all" like Lee was looking for either, as he could just threaten D.C., Philly, etc. So why did Lee even fight when he knew the Union had strong positions on the hills?

I’m very skeptical that this is not the view held by most people in say, France, Germany, Austria, or Russia, but due to me not speaking those languages, I can’t look up their perspectives.

Similarly, in looking up primary sources on the subject, I’m immediately struck by the quick realization that there’s no shortage of published British primary sources, whether from Wellington or Nelson themselves, other officers, or soldier diaries, journals, and books. I have to look very hard for any other perspectives. I found a few translated French sources from some of Napoleon’s marshals, but these are far fewer in number and at a much higher level than the varied points of view of British soldiers. I suspect that if I based my opinion on these sources alone, I’d get an extremely skewed bias in favor of the British, and get the view of the other allied powers as a mere side cast of characters.

To be clear, I’d like to point out that I don’t believe this issue to be present among actual scholars, but unfortunately when as I search for things online as a lay person, more often than not what I find are not scholars, but Wikipedia articles, Quora questions, and YouTube videos, which while entertaining, I have a hard time fully accepting, and this is where I’m worried these biases may shine through the most.

I’ve actually bought two books on the Napoleonic Wars, but I haven’t had the chance to start them yet because I feel like to understand those wars I need to understand the French Revolution and the French Revolutionary Wars, which I’ve also bought books on and I’m reading those first.

And also to be more specific, I’m curious more about the performance of these soldiers on the tactical level. I’m aware of strategic factors like the failed invasion of Russia, but that says more to me about the state of command than it does about the performance of the soldiers involved.

We know that ballot stations didn't exist in anywhere other than Rome and you had to have the time and money to suspend all business and head to Campus Martius. Wherever I look at ancient (or generally anything pre-modern) states that had some form of democratic voting, it only took place in the capital. I was wondering whether we have at all any examples of this?