I've sometimes read that vampire legends are inextricably linked to Europe and are associated with Christianity, hence the fear of the cross.

At the same time, it is also claimed that vampiric tales have existed for thousands of years, even outside of Europe.

But first of all, what is a vampire? The word "vampire" probably comes from "oupire" in Serbia. I think the two most common characteristics of the vampire are undeath, and the consumption of blood.

Were there any pre-Christian (or non-Christian) accounts of such creatures?

I've read of lamiae, vrykolakas, vetalas, jiangshi, obayifo, etc. but can they be described as vampires?

American here. I am eight episodes in and enjoying it, but I'll be danged if I can say exactly what these people DO, or how they maintain an estate that huge.

The servants work to make money. Farmers farm. Royalty...does royalty things, generally rules. I understand all of that, at least enough so that I can grasp what's happening in other shows. But I don't get what the Crawleys, and their class of people, actually DID. They had money, but from what? And what for?

In the series, you sometimes hear them saying things like, "We all have our part to play." But what part did families like this actually play? They seem to just sit around all day and worry about the house, their name, their legacy, but I don't see them going to important business meetings or anything like that.

I got hella sunburned the other day and I’ve been thinking about this

I have always read that a lot of Anglo-Saxon names had meanings. Such as Alfred meaning "elf counsel". Was this similar to the way native Americans names such as "Crazy Horse"? Would people during Alfred's time have understood his name as "Elf Counsel"? Or did the name already lose it's meaning like our modern day names?

I recently watched the 1975 film Barry Lyndon, which takes place from the 1750s to 1789. In the film there’s a young boy, Lord Bullingdon (about 10 in his first appearance), who is the inheritor of his deceased father’s estate.

His mother remarries and the boy’s stepfather only refers to him as “Lord Bullingdon,” which I understand since they are not related. But I got curious when the boy’s mother also only ever called him “Lord Bullingdon” as well, the boy’s first name is never spoken. In these scenes there were often other people, maids and valets and the like, around them, so I was wondering if family members of the nobility addressed each other by their first names in private?

I can see why a son wouldn’t call his mother by her first name, but were children of nobility only addressed by their titles even by their parents? What about in correspondence between siblings or other family members?

Is there such a thing as objective history? Is it possible for a historian to be completely unbiased? Should they?

Does anyone know of any good English language books on the czech legion?

I was reading Candide from Voltaire when in the 11th chapter a pontifical princess describe her abduction by moroccan pirates

Basically she say that her soldiers figth like "soldier of the pope" and immediatly surrenders and asking the pirates for a " absolution in articulo mortis".

It look like a mockery from Voltaire base on true event but I didnt find any sources or explanation.

I came across a bizarre conspiracy video that claims star shaped forts were created to store electromagnetic energy of some kind and I would really like to know why/how they were really built and what purposes they served?

To preface, I am not defending colonialism in any capacity, even if some other forms were less barbaric than others. I'm just curious how the different European nations that colonized the Americas, the Carribean, Polynesia, Africa, and Asia differed in how they treated the local population, whether native people or foreign citizens of another colony. Were they forced to assimilate to their culture? Were they even given the option to integrate into society and have rights? I would imagine that each nation differed in their colonial policy across different colonies at different times, but in general what was their outlook in how to colonize? What made the French different to, say, the Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, and Russian way of doing things?

I’m from Argentina, and it’s a pretty well establish fact the military Junta that terrorized our country in the 70’s had US support. I also read a little about Operation Condor and the US’s involvement in Chile. Some sources argue that US involvement was inconsequential and simply sped up a process that was already going to happen, while others make it seem like the US is the sole cause for many right wing dictatorships in Latin America. I was wondering if somebody here could clarify what happened, wether for a specific country or in the region as a whole. Thanks!

When Germany was occupied after WW2, and it was split up between the several major countries, did the USSR “keep” its part longer than they were supposed to? Were they supposed to have given control of their chunk back to the Germans around the same time the western powers did?

So I was looking at random things on the internet and found the Ayyubid sultanate in Egypt (1171-1341) and then the Mamluk sultanate of Egypt (1250-1517) I wonder why these dates would collide as they had the same territory.

A few days ago there was a post about the worst things humanity had ever done. Someone posted burning down the Library of Alexandria and a bunch of people replied how it never happened or, it kinda happened but nothing was lost. Then someone posted in TIL just now about it and now people are responding with how it actually did happen. Do people even have the answers?

What proportion of my harvest will my landlord take? If he uses his influence to take me off the tax registration documents, will my rent payment be higher or lower than what I was previously paying in taxes? Will he use his available capital to provide me with a plow and ox, increasing the productivity of the land I’m working? If he can reasonably expect me to bear arms for him if he rebels against the government, he must be cutting me a pretty sweet deal, right?

Though we have set rules for what consistutes a War Crime today, where did these come from and have previous civilisations also had rules about what was and was not acceptable in war? Were there war criminal's prior to the 20th century in a similar sense to war criminal's today?

Ive often wondered why the Great Wall of China isn’t counted amongst them? Is it not ancient enough? Or not wonderful enough? Was this list of ancient wonders made in modern times or ancient times?