Hi. Dumb question here. Fantasy novels I've read(Shadowmarch, The Years of Rice and Salt, A Song of Ice and Fire) have convinced me that eunuchs are large, imposing, hairless men. Is there any actual evidence that speaks to this, even in written description? And if so, what causes them to get so big? I realize that latter question is probably more of an askscience question, but I figure it couldn't hurt to ask.

What sorts of products would people in the East have been interested in during the Middle Ages? We often hear about the silk and spices that the West traded for, but what did they trade with?

Clarification: what was life like for, say, an English or Spanish king during the Renaissance?

Just saw a topic deleted earlier today for breaching this rule. The problem with non-experts is that they don't always know enough to ask the right questions. An easy thing to forget when you are the one with the expertise, but why should the inquisitive be punished for their lack of knowledge? What is the purpose of this subreddit if not educating those willing to learn?

To be specific this question asked how generals were trained in the art of warfare in the ancient world. A relatively vague question but certainly one open to genuine insight from an expert. Not a question designed for a trolling purpose, nor a thinly veiled political opinion structured as a question.

Now here's the thing, we all know the question is too broad to give a single answer to. But that isn't reason enough for deletion. If the true answer is "training for generals wasn't standardized in a widespread way until the year ____ so it varied from region to region and often even from general to general" then why not just say so?

The idea behind this rule seems to be that vague questions get vague answers but that need not be the case, in fact in cases where it is it should be the vague answer being deleted not the broad question. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone providing the example question with an excellent answer. Nothing is stopping someone simply picking an ancient general and describing their training program with the usual preface of "obviously it wasn't the same for everyone" then bam, we have a detailed answer about the training of a particular ancient general and we've all learned something. As a bonus, because the question wasn't massively specific another expert in another time period can also chime in about another general he knows lots about and be completely relevant to the topic at hand without retreading the same ground as previous answers.

Remember, you have no obligation to make your answer as vague as the question itself. The ability to provide detailed information in response to a broad question is where the value of the expert lies. A good doctor doesn't respond to a question like "what should I avoid doing while pregnant?" with "there's a million possible answers to that, it's a bullshit question and I'm not answering it." they just tell you the specific things most likely to be related to your situation. They tell you to avoid smoking while pregnant and a dozen other things you'd likely do if you didn't know any better. They recognize you don't necessarily know enough to ask the right questions in the right way and they work around it and provide you useful information anyway.

I suggest we stop discouraging broad questions but continue encouraging specific answers to questions of all scopes.

I 've always heard/read quite a bit about her having lots of affairs, even going as far as having sex with horses, which I find really odd considering her rank and time in history. Are there documented facts about this? Are the records reliable or could they just had been written by her enemies? I'm not a native English speaker so please forgive me if my English is incorrect or clumsy :-)

At some point in history someone must have come up with the novel idea to put a second floor directly on top of the first to maximize the area a house took up, so when and where was it?

From as early as marx theories to near the collapse of the USSR, what did Comunists think of it?

After reading about the slaves/children Thomas Jefferson had, I noticed that not only did his slave-mistress do this but his daughter did also.

i.e. Ellen Wayles Randolph (1794–1795).

Ellen Wayles Randolph (1796–1876).

Seems, I don't know, a bit morbid. I started to remember that I think Vincent Van Gogh was also given the name of a deceased sibling also. Was this common, was there a lack of names, or were they dead set on a name!?

All too often I am late to a post, only to see endless streams of [deleted] comments. It seems like this phenomenon is more pronounced in this sub than others.

So first, am I wrong? Do I just really crave the information more in this sub, so memories if the [deleted] stuff stands out in my mind? Or is it actually more prevalent here than elsewhere?

If it is prevalent here, well, why could that be? Any insight would be much appreciated.

And finally, I'm sorry if this post is out of line. I tried to read the sidebar, but it was hard to navigate on mobile. Mods, of you have to delete this, I would still like some of your thoughts (so if that is the case, message me?).

Cheers

I need assistance in finding two significant figures, dignitaries, whatever it may be that started on good terms, as allies, but began to have opposing thoughts/views that led to their eventual rivalry?

ISIS, Middle Eastern jihadists and Muslim separatists in South East Asia are about as far apart as it's possible to be in geography and in their origins, but making a peculiar public spectacle of executing captives by beheading is something they've each done.

I suppose there may well be other reasons particular to their local cultures for the practice, but is there something in common Islamic tradition or history that gives the execution of a prisoner by beheading a particular meaning and cache for Islamic cultures?

Hi there historians! I'm working on a paper about how "history is subjective", and I'm hoping you might know of some good resources (maybe essays or studies that examine this), or have some good examples, so I can head in the right direction. Thanks for any and all help!

I have to give a 4-6 minute presentation of Innocent III, and I was wondering if anybody here knows any interesting, not common knowledge facts about him, his life or his papacy. Thanks!

To avoid confusion, I'll refer the English-based Scots as English and the Gaelic one as Celtic.

I'm watching been Outlander TV series for the past week. It's set in 18th century Scotland. A fair amount of the dialogue is in Celtic. I'd like to think that the producers made a good effort in trying to make it historically accurate, at least on the Scottish culture side of things.

What bugs me though is that everyone in the show is bilingual. They can speak both English and Celtic. That can't be right. It's as if they just forcefully include some Celtic into dialogue to make it romantic or some sort and have it in English to make actual viewers understand.

I'm not quite familiar with Scot history but aren't they suppose to be only proficient in one language? I mean, probably at one point in history, Scots spoke Celtic but in another era, they would speaking in english. If Celtic's the language, then I would expect only the Laird and a few of his higher ranked men to be capable of speaking it.

So which language was used by common folk in 18th century?

What was the maximum number of Dutch troops simultaneously present in Indonesia during its colonial occupation?

If I recall correctly, Denmark had a rather large navy and controlled Norway at this time. Sweden was also a fairly important power. Were these nations involved at all and to what extent?

I'm mostly referring to Denmark and Sweden. Finland I'm pretty sure was still part of Russia)