Yes, i know values in that time were different. Still, i don't think going around raping married women and priestess and murdering people for being at the wrong place at the wrong time was seen as much better as we see it today. Apart from maybe Hades, every single God is responsible for the suffering of many innocent people. So why? Why were they worshiped in spite of this?

So I know asking this to historians might be a bit of a stretch but I caught myself thinking about it today. A lot of books, games and movies shows the elves like these superior, elitists arrogant race.

Something similar happens to dwarves, like living in mountains, and having long beards.

It became kind of a pattern. One person that came to mind was Tolkien, but I don’t fully understand his influence to know if this could be enough to create this kind of Cliche.

Throughout modern history, it seems that it is often junior military officers (groups of captains, colonels, lower ranking generals) that attempt to commit a coup d'etat, or succeed in doing so. There are obviously plenty of coups committed by high ranking generals, but just looking through a history of coups and coup attempts and you can find tons committed by junior officers. This includes, among others:

• Colonel Reza Khan's 1921 coup that brought the Pahlavi dynasty to power in Iran
• The 1931 coup attempts by the Japanese Army (led by Lieutenant Colonel Kingoro Hashimoto)
• The 1967 coup by a group of colonels in Greece that established the military junta
• The 1969 Libyan coup d'état in which Colonel Muammar Gaddafi took power
• The recent successful coup in Mali this past June by Colonel Assimi Goita

Why do these more junior officers seem to be more inclined to take power in coups than high ranking generals or defense ministers? Are generals simply more satisfied with the status quo, and junior officers have more to gain?

Jim Morrison, the famous rock musician, is buried in Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris. The same cemetery that artistic greats Frédéric Chopin, Édith Piaf, Oscar Wilde, and Georges Méliès are buried in.

I had an English teacher in high school who visited the cemetery while in Paris and she said that there was some debate as to if Jim Morrison should be buried in Père Lachaise Cemetery. According to her, Morrison's lyrics were given out to the people of Paris and they were asked if it was poetic enough and they said yes.

Is this true? Did anything like this ever happen?

I can understand the use of bright colors in picking out friend from foe in the madness of mass melee, but once gunpowder became king why didn't camoflauge or even heavily muted colors become the norm?

Hello,

I would like to learn more about Alexios Komnenos and the state of the Byzantine Empire when it ascending in the throne and if someone could suggest about his legacy and the future lines of the emperor.

I know one books which I must buy is:

Alexiad

​

thank you in advance

Title Says It

Pliny the Elder wrote in the 1st century AD that soap was an "invention of the Gauls for giving a reddish tint to the hair. "

Is this mostly accepted?

I've been listening to Pride and Prejudice, and something struck me about the way that names are used.

At home, Elizabeth is called 'Lizzie' by her family. Her friends and acquaintances (same gender) sometimes call her Miss Elizabeth Bennett, sometimes Miss Eliza Bennett, and in Charlotte's case, just plain Eliza.

Mr Darcy never calls her Elizabeth until he proposes the second time (Dearest, loveliest Elizabeth). I figured that was to do with permissible familiarity. But Elizabeth's parents never refer to each other by first name. Is that because they're in the presence of their children, or is it an indication of the (lack of) warmth in their relationship?

That's without even getting into 'Emma', and the affront around Knightley and Mr E

So what were the conventions around first names, nicknames, and, titles? And to what extent would transgressions be punished?

Hey everyone! I was a history major and mainly focused on the Viking Age, but was completely flummoxed by this question from a friend the other day. Say a Norwegian family had 3 sons, what were the odds that at least 1 of them would be, at some point in their life, a Viking?

The M4s were one of the commonly used tanks during the Korean war which managed to knock out 47 T-34s for the loss of 20 M4s. This was due to the lack of armor the M4 had(92mm of Frontal armor protection) which couldn't withstand a direct hit from the T-34's 85mm gun.

The M4A3E2 Jumbo on the other hand had better armor protection which allowed it to withstand direct hits from Panthers and Tiger Is. So why didn't they use those instead of the standard M4A3E8s?

By 'our' understanding, I maybe mean 'my' understanding, but my understanding is an unspoken rule or social convention that compels folk to be extremely hospitable to strangers due to the fact that they may be a deity in human form.

Now, we certainly have some social constructs regarding this today in modern western societies, typically based on empathy and "today you, tomorrow me" social obligations, and I am curious how different, or more accommodating and strict it would be. For instance, in our medley of modern western cultures I might assume this sub is comprised of, if one were on a hike and saw someone else on a hike in need, even if they were just hungry, it's reasonable to spare some food and/or chat for a bit. However, if someone comes to your home front door asking for that same granola bar out of the blue, you'd probably be less welcoming.

That's not to say that we do practice guest friendship, but there are situations where we certainly would be expected more so, and others less so, to be good to strangers.

Now, if someone comes to your door in classical Greece asking for food and conversation, I've been led to believe that you are obligated to accommodate this. How true is this?

I don’t think I mean the ones removed by mods as they usually have a visible response to go along with it; because sometimes a post will indicate it has 5 responses or something but when I click on it I only see the pinned comment and nothing else. Is there a spam filter, or are those comments also moderated in private?

The runes have been around since the 2nd century AD and would've very widespread when the Goths converted to Christianity around 376 or 390 AD.

When they converted rather than writing the bible in their own writing system, the runes, they instead opt for a new one and start writing the bible from there.

Wouldn't it be easier to write the bible in a script the converts are already familiar with? What was the reasoning behind the switch? Were the runes hard to learn, do they see it as "unchristian" therefore they distance from their pagan past, or is there another reason to change their alphabet.

Viking are always portrayed as tall and muscular people, did they really looked like that?