It seems that history is littered with accounts of naughty nuns and deviant monks all striving for pleasure when they should have been in prayer (the reformation, French revolutionary anti-clericalism etc.). Yet these accounts often come from enemies of the monasteries and are thus untrustworthy as source material. Would someone on ask Historians be able to separate fact from fiction a little bit for me? Were monks and nuns "getting it on" for want of a better phrase all over the place (with the opposite gender or the same for that matter) or were they for the most part a virtuous bunch whose occasional sins were blown completely out of proportion by their enemies and detractors. Any time period is fine, I just wanted to get a broad feeling for the topic.

OK, so I know that these two channels in particular gear their shows more toward the American viewer. Sometimes maybe over exaggerating a little bit. I have been seeing a lot of their recent documentaries getting a lot of flak about them providing some incorrect information. Is this true? Are these broadcasting's becoming a little bit more far-fetched nowadays?

I'm not asking about social security- but rather the use of SSNs as a means of identification. How did people file tax returns before SSNs existed? How did people apply for credit? How did people do anything that now requires a SSN?

Research during wars have made possible of much advancement in science we see today from organ transplant to rocket science. Why was there need of wars to do such research? What could have been present condition if there hadn't been wars?

I've recently become interested in Pirates, and I was researching Captain Kidd, and how he started off as a pirate hunter but eventually became recognized as a pirate himself. How did this happen?

Was there any medical knowledge of what it was or did they just assume it was the Gods up to no good?

I love armor, I think it's beautiful and the concept of improving a human's durability is very interesting to me. However, I've never heard of any historical sources or reenactment enthusiasts discuss how effective armor actually has been through the ages. Generally, it's limited to how Longbows can pierce plate, and guns trumped all.

If you were facing a roman in either chainmail or breastplate, would you see his chest as impenetrable and need to direct all attacks at head/arms/legs? (Disregarding the shield in this example)

What about at a European Man-at-arms with a mix of leather and metal armor? A proper knight with some type of Plate?

How effective were armors in Melee, compared to ranged? Another sentiment I've noticed is that armor is occasionally mentioned blocking against ranged attacks, but less so in close combat. Shields are mentioned in both, even more frequently though.

Plus, it seems like having a shield was pretty much the best option since these seem to be used by almost every culture in some way and just about any levyman would try to get a basic shield.

Follow-up question: Are there any sources of fencing manuals or the like that actually emphasize USING your armor in a fight? IE; Utilize a shoulder guard to deflect a blow while you swing opposite the enemies weapon?

In /r/papertowns you see tons of huge/prominent star forts (otherwise known as trace italienne) surrounding cities in the 16th century. This style of fortification was apparently not only quite effective but also very durable, but you don't see any trace (no pun intended) of their existence on Google Maps. I'm wondering when most of these fortresses disappeared and what happened to all that stone and earthworks. Did they become obsolete and get taken down on purpose, or did they just crumble over time? Obviously most of these cities grew to be much larger later on, so how long were these impressive structures actually intact?

EDIT: I have been made aware that there are pieces of some star forts that are still intact, which is good to know. However, I'm specifically interested in the fate of those star forts that are no longer intact, because it seems bizarre to me that they could be removed from a city without any trace remaining.

At any rate, it seems that there are more surviving medieval castles than star forts, and I would assume that this is due to the fact that the medieval castles tend to be located in more remote areas than star forts, but if someone would like to correct me on that then please go ahead. However, I would still like to know about the process of taking down such prominent and large fortifications.

I'll admit, Japan and East Asia in generally are kind of blind spots for me historically. So if this is way off base, I apologize.

As I understand it, Japanese and Chinese cultures were mostly kept isolated from each other for long periods of time, despite their close proximity. This allowed them to develop distinct cultural personalities, but just how strong was this isolation? Was it one more of preference or were there strong geographic and / or political reasons for this isolation?

Did it have any presence or was it totally absent from pre-Islamic Arabia?

It seems that up until around the Enlightement/Industrial Revolution the successive Abbasid and Ottoman Empires tender to have an advantage over the Europeans both on the battlefield and in political courts. This has often created a sort of dissonance in my mind that is difficult to reconcile when the American classroom often presents western civilization as this long streak of unrivaled superiority to everything else, yet any look at actual history shows much of the european middles ages rife with major losses of territory and invasion by the Muslim world.

So what factored into this? Why did Europe take such a battering from the Ottomans and others during this time, and what were they lacking that their enemies had?

In both cases you had America taking over Pacific Islander nations, but for some reason from what I understand when the issue of Filipino statehood came up there was a racist backlash that got them kicked out of the USA. This was also around the time of the White Man's Burden, and all of that nonsense as well. You would have thought that after decades of effort in 'civilizing' those people that they would have been allowed to remain? How come arguments about tarnishing a white nation weren't such a concern with Hawai'i if that was a problem in our other Islander territory?

Numerous documentaries, tv shows and films portray Anne Boleyn as a cunning woman who connived her way to the top by playing Henry like a flute. But how much actual history supports this? Are there letters in her own hand or diaries that lend credence to this or is it just the ill report of her enemies? For a woman who was called prostitute, concubine and witch for her role in the divorce of Catherine and the transformation of the church, I can't help but wonder if her "wicked womanly wiles" was just as contrived.

Are the "fair youth","dark lady" and "rival poet" thought to be real people?

What are some beliefs they held? Why did they leave England and what did they hope to accomplish in the New World?

I think most people's view -- and certainly mine -- is that most technologies and methods develop along similar lines. For instance, the modern printing press makes use of many techniques available in older methods. People could put ink on engraved images and print those for a long time before movable type, for instance.

However, I'm a beginner knitter, and as I finished the old screwed-up thing I started out with years ago (I've happily made rectangles of varied lengths for myself and friends since), I wondered if there were any simpler stages to this process. It seems like one of those ideas that just happened. How do you do this more simply? The cloth would fall apart. But it also seems crazy that one person one day figured out how to link yarn together like that.

So do we know how it did happen? Or do we know of any simpler versions? I'm thinking something separate from, say, "well, we only knitted, we didn't purl" or similar. The project of using two needles to weave together a single piece of yarn into a tightly-woven cloth, was there a simpler way to do that?

Hopefully this wasn't incoherent. I didn't get a lot of sleep last night...

Can't seem to find where this has been answered comprehensively, so if anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

I'd like to know what the standard firearms were for the American military during WWII, and by what rank. I understand that the Colt 1911 was common, but typically carried only by officers, and that the M1 Garand was the standard rifle. I also understand there was a lot of variation, where there were some firearms that saw very limited use. However, what were the "standard" firearms, and by what rank? Would an armorer refuse to service a 1911 if it were carried by a PFC? Was there a variation in weaponry based on what front a soldier might be fighting in?

If this is too broad a question, or the inappropriate subreddit, I apologize, but I'm told there are some very knowledgeable folks around here in terms of WWII weaponry and I'd love to hear them explain this stuff.