I've heard from multiple sources that the vikings treated their women incredibly well (viking women at least) is this accurate? If so would their rights have been comparable to modern day western societies or possibly even better?

At what point did western society decide it was standard convention to eat the sweet courses of a meal after the savoury courses and was there a reason for it. Other than the obvious savoury courses are, usually, healthier than sweet so it makes sense to eat the more nutritious food first when your stomach is less full.

i have read that it was common for people to drink a grainy, low-alcohol beer throughout the day, even with breakfast. if this is true, does that mean many people were just walking around partially buzzed?

Who chose who replaced whom? Hämäläinen implies it was up to "matrons" of the particular "clan" in question (p. 22), but doesn't say it explicitly. Was it based on similarity to the dead? Did the family of the dead have any say?

Did the adopted prisoners really have all the same rights as the dead people they replaced? Hämäläinen says that this was not the case for captured women, who were most likely to be kept as slaves, but he implies that the captured men were treated exactly as though they were the dead men they replaced. Did these men experience any stigma for not really being who they were supposed to replace? Or, alternatively, was there a lack of stigma, and instead, was the pressure to live up to the impossible task of replacing a loved one so strong that it led to a crisis of identity, or a feeling of inadequacy?

If multiple or all members of a couple or family were killed, could the entire couple or family be replaced, or was that loss considered too far? If children were born of a relationship with one of these replacement men or women, would they even be told, or was the desire to replace the dead so strong that everyone simply agreed to forget with the next generation? I just have so many questions.

One question I don't wish to over-emphasize, though, is the sexual question. I'm curious how sexual and romantic relations involving a replacement captive were perceived socially, who had agency in the relationship by what means, and if/how they were able to exercise their agency if they were societally pressured to surrender it. However, I want to be clear, this is some serious stuff, with a high potential for trauma, and I want to treat it with respect. If that means an NSFW tag, so be it, and I'll leave that to the mods. But I want to emphatic that sexual violence is not supposed to be the focus of my question.

I recently watched a show where some Jacobite soldiers in 1746 were equipped with boar spears and was wondering if it was common for spears to be used during the 16th-18th centuries, particularly in Scotland and Ireland.

Is there any instances of a coup being a good thing or bringing proper democracy

I know, another WW2 question, but yeah.

I believe the French did adopt semi-automatic guns but still.

All of their aircraft crashed, they landed in hostile territory and I'm assuming they didn't know any Chinese. So what did they do at that time and after? Did they borrow an aircraft or a boat from the Chinese? Which route did they take to get back?

I have a bachelor's in history, but I found the courses in-depth and focused on specific areas of history. While I obviously understand the reason for this, given that students need to do in-depth analysis of the causes and results of what happened at the time, I feel that I have very little chronological understanding of the whole of human history. I moved to South East Asia two years ago, and while I studied the Vietnam war at University in South Africa, I have very little understanding of the progression of history in the east (and throughout the globe). I'd love to read a book that kind of summarises the progression of various cultures chronologically throughout human history. I feel I have a spotty (but in-depth) understanding of certain periods of history, but I'd like to bring all this knowledge together. I've read Bill Bryson's "A Brief History of Nearly Everything", but that's more scientific. Is there a historical equivalent?

On March 9th, 1566, Lord Darnley and several nobles burst into Mary's chambers, held her at gunpoint (she was pregnant with James VI/I at the time), and murdered her private secretary David Rizzio in front of her. There were plenty of witnesses including the ladies that were also around.

By all accounts that's treason and as Queen Regnant (not consort, but ruler in her own right) she was well within her rights to have them arrested and killed for threatening their current and future unborn ruler, her heir.

Instead, after Darnley switches sides and helps Mary escape, she not only forgives him but also pardons the other conspirators (Argyll, Moray, and Glencairn) and restores them to their positions on the council. (Some others didn't get pardoned and fled to England for safety, but the point is plenty of people who should have been executed right then and there remained in Scotland with no punishment or loss of power.)

Of course just because Mary forgave him, didn't mean their relationship recovered. After a few more months they were back to being unable to stand one another and this time Mary wants to get rid of Darnley for good (along with many other Scottish nobles -- the guy was widely despised).

Eventually Darnley does die, months later, under suspicious circumstances which almost everyone knew Mary and some other nobles assassinated him. Her reputation ended up taking a huge hit for that.

So my question is why didn't she just hold a public trial, using "we were waiting for the pregnant queen to give birth" as an excuse for why it took a few months, and stack the jury with the nobles who were plotting to assassinate him anyway? Is there something about law and legal precedent in 16th century Scotland that I've missed?

The Vikings weren't afraid of death because they believed they would move on to Valhalla where they would be greeted by Odin. But what if you were so good at combat that you simply died of old age? You wouldn't have died with honor in combat, but you would have been a great warrior. Would you still be granted access to Valhalla?

A few years ago, A Roger Ekirch’s book ‘At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past’ popularised the idea that bimodal sleeping was the norm in medieval Europe, and this was repeated across much of the English-language press before becoming a popular ‘Did you know’-style tidbit. The idea is that rather than sleeping for around 8 hours straight, people back then would wake up for a couple of hours in between for various chores, prayer, sex, etc. Several references to ‘first sleep’ and ‘second sleep’ are given from medieval literature, and discussion with sleep scientists and anthropologists.

How normal was this, and was it particular to certain times and places? Or was it a common pattern but a single ‘sleep’ was more usual? I have also come across claims that a lot of these references may have been misinterpreted. I’d be interested to know what that current conclusions in actual research might be.

I am a writer and have been researching the period during the reign of Louis XIV. I am particularly interested in finding examples and reference materials about major crimes in Paris or at Versailles during this period, e.g. major art or jewel heists, or murder most foul. I am not interested in the Affair of the Poisons as that is well documented and I have researched that already.

I was doing some reading at it says that they worshiped the baphomet. It also says they were Catholics so I’m confused.

And what was the through deck term supposed to infer that would have made it more attractive to fund? It seems unlikely just calling them something other than carriers would have fooled anyone making decisions.

I heard that a lot of food we see as ancestral or representative of a country (pho in vietnam, foufou (manioc) in africa, mapo tofu in china,kimchi in korea) are often very young. Sometimes not older than 200 years old.

How much did the colombian exchange changed the cuisine relief in the world. Is there some country that were mostly unaffected by all the new goods or the globalization did his job and altered the inside out of food culture everywhere.

Was there some boom in the diversity of recipe or was it just an incorporation of foreign ingredients in regional recipe who then slowly evolved to be different.

I was thinking of writing a document about countries in Asia since most people seem to think only China & Japan are Asian, but I ran across some problems (Russia & Turkey). This made me become curious on how some countries are regarded as part of one continent but not another, and how some countries are even sometimes referred to as being in both continents (Eurasia) .

There are dozens of Chinese dialects spoken in China, most notably Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, Shanghainese to name a few. The spoken form of these dialects are so different that they could be considered completely separate languages if they weren’t unified under the same written language.

Why do we not see something similar in Europe? My understanding may be flawed but the Romance languages may have been considered dialects of Latin at one point in history, but their written form is vastly different from one another today. This is obviously not the case with dialects spoken in China.

I understand this may be more of a linguistic question than a historical one.

Dear all,

being born into a Central European society which, to my understanding, still mostly sees its values rooted in „Christianity“ made me wonder what Christiany had to offer over the ancient polytheistic religions. It certainly did not change our overall stance towards violence, war and conquest much, when one looks at European history. From my cursory understanding of how Christianity came into prominence (and power), for many pagan rulers, it appeared to be a simple choice of gaining access to influential circles and being able to construct a certain continuity to justify their power or claim to power. But what of the ancient Roman emperors? Why would they choose Christianity over their ancestral religious views? Was it the promise of an afterlife/eternal life?

What do we know about the (individual) process that led to Christianity becoming dominant?

Thank you, in advance!