So I'm watching the movie Django Unchained, and I realize the main character, Dr. Schultz refers to himself as German throughout the whole movie, yet Germany as a unified state did not yet exist at the time (1860). Was there a common cultural "German" identity prior to 1871 throughout the various Germanic states?

I hear it used as justification for neighbor actions ie Saddam invading and lesser known that next door in Afghanistan the communist were very paranoid of Khomeini pushing into Herat and even thought he was behind a uprising in Herat( he was not). So how of threat really were they at this point?

Both legally and socially speaking. Even if bestiality itself was not a crime, can't imagine the reputational costs of being widely known as someone who may have defiled last week's dinner were slight.

Another way to put this might be: In pre-Christian Hellenic and Roman cultures, were the Gods generally believed to still actively intervene in the contemporary world as in the legends? Seducing mortals, physically manifesting themselves, directly speaking with people, etc. If that sort of thing was consigned to a bygone age, would claiming you had such an interaction with a god be viewed as blasphemous?

I've always wondered if it is actually possible.

I'm reading the Masters of Rome series right now and a number of characters mention "dignitas" and "auctoritas". I looked them up on Wikipedia and the definitions seem very similar, they both seem to relate to your social standing and prestige. Was there any difference between these two concepts? For instance, after Gaius Marius has a stroke, Julius Caesar says his auctoritas has diminished, why is this? Why auctoritas particularly and not dignitas?

I am not sure if this is the right subreddit, so mods, please remove if I am breaking any rules.

please correct me if Im wrong about anything

Persanolly I have my own persanol theroy

[Medival monks in a monastry]

Good day sir, in our library I found a copy of Satyricon , it is sadly quite degraded being barely legible but I can still copy and peserve it for futrute monks said the monk

No sir, we have to copy Aristotle today and tommrow , his work remains a useful guide for kings still said the other monk

But, we have 2o copies of several of his works in our library already , and copy one a month anyway.

NO, get back to work and copy aristole or I will make you become a blacksmith

Fine

[the manusdcript gets lost in a fire and never gets copied]

So I read some where that certain isolated tribes in south America never developed iron until it was traded with them. How come they never discovered it or found a replacement for it? Was there just no need for iron or was there no iron ore?

It was a Belgian colony and Belgium speaks French and Flemish, so why did Congo-Kinshasa only speak french?

This seems to be a common characteristic of naval battles. Ships were often able to bombard land artillery while staying out of range of return fire. Is this because of something intrinsic to putting a cannon on a ship or have I just disproportionately been reading about battles where this happened to be the case? What am I missing?

For reference, a couple example battles were the Battle of Port Royal in the American Civil War and the Bombardment of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812.

The idea that Euro-American peoples are too soft, comfortable, or self-centered to fight seems like it keeps coming up during the 20th and 21st centuries. The Axis in World War II, the communist world during the Cold War, and radical Islam in our day all have made use of this concept. I'm interested in how this got started and why it seems so persistent (especially when it never really comes true).

I mean the Nazi's were ruthless period but why was Nazi occupied Poland and Ukraine so much worse than the occupation of France in terms of how Non-Jews were treated?

I'm very ignorent of African history and would like to know more. Africa, for me as a continent is associated by me (Quite ignorently I assume) with civil wars, disease and hunger and want to change my view of it.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

My main interest is in European history, particularly medieval history, but I am curious about this topic. I have met and talked to history professors at Mexican universities, and some of them seem to give the impression that pre-Hispanic societies were not at all underdeveloped as compared to other civilizations, like the European one, so I would like to ask you what is your assessment of the material capacities of such people, and if possible draw a comparison to Old World equivalents.

I realize that this can be a controversial topic, so I want to make it clear that I am not positting the ranking of civilizations in an absolute, "value objective" comparison table, as I realize that the criteria to define what is desirable varies according to culture. What I want is a comparison of each culture's capability to achieve what we consider material well-being.

It occurs to me that the Mexicas and the Incans could be compared to the early Mesopotamian civilizations. What are your thoughts?

This is just personal observation, but whenever I watch C-SPAN, I see a boring, sterile Congress, yet whenever I watch highlights from Parliament, I always get the sign that it's much more open to banter, more prone to chaos, etc.

Is there a cultural reason behind these differences? Were they both ever alike (both solemn/both chaotic) and simply underwent a divergence within the past few centuries, kind of like how many British accents diverged from American accents? What is the effect on the ability to pass legislation, the ability to run for office and maintain popularity? Are there certain paradigms regarding the role of a the Speaker of the House vs. the Prime Minister (or some other analogous position)?

Many people hold President Lincoln as the greatest American president for holding the states together during a period of civil war and for freeing the slaves. But recently I have found a letter where President Lincoln said that if freeing the slaves would keep the states together he would do it, if only freeing some would keep it together he would do it, and if freeing none of them would keep it together then he would do that.

While paraphrased a bit it’s basically saying that he would do what ever he could to keep the states together. So was his freeing of the slaves just a bid to try and keep the nation together or did he actually care for the welfare of the people he was freeing?

In Pre-Roman Europe?

We know that by the time Julius Caesar hit the Gauls with the imperialism stick, there was a strong network of trade from Britain to Greece, trading gold and metal works for amphorae of wine and the like. I've been doing some reading about the Germanic tribes and I honestly can't find anything about Scandinavians, their culture, gods, or trade routes.