I know that it used to be an offence that was punishable by torture and death, but I'm wondering when it ceased to be so? England is now close to 40% atheist (or so I've been led to believe) but 600 years ago, those people would have been burned at the stake or dunked in the river or what have you.. just wondering what changed and when. Thank you.

I'm curious if soldiers just all immediately stopped fighting or if some kept going at it. How does a worldwide war end?

I imagine most officers must have had bank accounts. But what about the common soldiers, were they paid a lump sum at the end of their service? Or were they paid monthly? If so how did the process work? Also how common was it for money to be lost or payments forgotten, due to the chaos of the war and the flux of the front?

I am interested in Germany, the UK, Japan, America, the USSR and Italy; so any answer for one of these nations is welcome.

So, looking back at US Presidential election, Vermont never voted for the Democrats until 1964 with Johnson. After that, it went back to the GOP then in 1992, it went Democratic again and hasn't gone back since.

My question is why did this occur?

According to numbers I read, about 33% percent of the world population is Christian and about 22% is Muslim. Why have these religions managed to displace traditional religion all over the place?

It can't just be due to political intimidation. Certainly that happened, such as forced conversions on pain of death or slavery. But during the Japanese Empire, there was a similar enforcement of Japanification in conquered areas. Similarly, Indonesia was not even conquered by Muslim armies, but many converted of their own accord.

Christianity and Islam are even still spreading today. The Catholic Church has an increasing presence in East Asia, so much so that it seems that the Chinese government feels threatened and has been taking action. The Pope even just visited South Korea.

Why have Christianity and Islam been so successful when other religions, which have been around for a long time have not spread so effectively? Examples include Zoroastrianism (which Islam seems to have effectively displaced), Judaism, Yazidi, Sikhism, and traditional religions all over the world.

Spain had a history of being an empirical powerhouse, yet they couldn't take over a country half their size? Did they simply not care or was there something stopping them?

How much did Han China and the Roman Empire actually know about each other?

Yesterday I asked a question on slavery regarding whether Romans or the Ancients in general had any movement to end slavery/improve the welfare of slaves. The general consensus I was given that Roman and Greek society at least, lacked the perspective of slavery being something "wrong" (even among slaves themselves) even if slaves individually fought to improve their lot in life.

This is a follow up question then. I would like to know then when historically did we see this movement towards slavery being seen as something inherently evil. (Apologies to any admins if I was meant to continue posting/asking the question in the original post. I felt this question, while similar tangentially to my original post, was different enough and required different expertise knowledge warrant a seperate question. If there are any issues, please tell me and I'll try avoid it in the future! I'm new to this incredible subreddit)

I'm sorry mods if this somehow broke the rules and its ok to be removed.

I'm looking for a good film about the trials and executions that are almost pinpoint accurate. Or at least a great documentary.

Saw this pop up in a thread somewhere and wondered if the responses were actually legit. So I turn to you. I study chinese studies and would be very interested in your response. Thank you.

The stereotypical image of a an American slave owner is an old white man with a big plantation. Was there any gender diversity that belies this image? Old widows? Young Widows? Middle aged spinster captains of agriculture? In a twisted perverse way that could be seen as a kind of feminist empowerment.

Could women own and acquire slaves in their own right, independent of their husband or father? Would a female slave owner face different societal expectations than a male one? Would she be harsher/gentler when disciplining her slaves?

I believe Martha Washington inherited a her father's slaves, which promptly passed into George Washington's ownership when they got married, and then were willed to her again when he died. Did they have any marital problems from disagreements on how to manage 'her' business assets? How common were scenarios like those of Martha Washington?

Were the failures of the Royal Navy or the relative successes and failures of British and Argentine air power and infantry big news amongst Soviet military circles?

I'm assuming it was largely in line with the advent of firearms, but I'm curious if there is more to the story.