Led Zeppelin made a lot of references to Lord Of The Rings in their music, particularly in Led Zeppelin IV (1971).

Since Tolkein sadly passed away in 1973, he lived to see the release of the first five Led Zeppelin albums.

Do we have any record of him discussing these albums?

Do we know if he even heard them?

I often think about this topic.

We all know that during the world wars (I&II), the young men (Civilians) were conscripted and sent to the front line to fight the war. But we never hear about the role the middle aged men (Civilians) played in the combat. Were they too conscripted and send on the front line? or were they in the commanding position to command the young men?

(Note: Im talking about the men in the war torn countries/ Region of Europe and their colonies).

For some time I was under the impression that the prospect of eternal punishment for the wicked and eternal paradise for the righteous was the "selling point". But there was Tartarus and Elysium and, by the time of Virgil, the Underworld was compartmentalized in a way that was almost Dantean.

By the time of the Diocletianic Persecution, there were Roman senators that had abandoned Jupiter Capitolinus for the church. What caused them to inherit the god and religious texts of the cult of an alien, foreign people, with a main character who was killed by the lowest form of capital punishment the Romans had, and a god that was mutually exclusive not just to the worship of other gods but to the recognition of their very existence?

I've one question that bugs me a lot about archeology: Why do we still find ruins (or historical artifacts) although thousands of years have past, wars have been fought, natural catastrophies occured and agriculture happend?

Okay, a few sites like Machu Picchu where lost in remote places but how is it still possible that archeologists still find, for example, roman coins in wheat fields although the land is cultivated since the empire itself? And why do we find this things just now? Was nobody interested in archeology a few hundred years ago?

Hello! I am from rural Vermont, and there is a quite small cemetery local to me that I visit semi-frequently. I have family buried there. Many of the stones in it are from the mid to late 1800s though there are more modern ones as well.

The particular stone I have a question about is dated in the 1800s ( I think mid, not late, though I am not certain). I do not have a photo of it, as I was worried that would be disrespectful, though I can get a photo of it later in the week if that is needed for identification. The stone is pretty standard whitish, rectangular, and rather tall. There is no special design or words on it. It is clearly next to several other family members' graves. I can't remember the name on the stone but it was a man's. I would consider it unassuming except for the fact that there are (or was) chains around it. There are two stone posts in front of the stone as well as two stone posts a bit to the back of the stone (about where the actual casket would end). The front posts are connected by heavy and rusted chains, and so are the back two posts. They have rusted chain loops on the other sides which suggest that there may have once also been chains connecting the back posts to the front ones. Essentially, it looks like the stone and actual grave were intended to have been chained in, although two sides of chains are not present.

My initial assumption was that maybe the man who was put to rest there was someone dangerous or spooky that they wanted to keep from haunting people. Or, that at some point odd things happened with the gravestone that made it seem haunted and it was then cordoned off. These are assumptions I had made when I was a kid but still generally think make sense. However, when I finally remembered to Google it today, I was unable to come up with any results explaining why this might be. I'd thought maybe this was more or less a common practice in general or, at least, in my area. Now, it seems like it might actually be more odd than I expected.

I would love to hear about the historical/cultural context of this both in the world in general and in my area if that makes any difference. I know New England has been prone to have a lot of weird graveyard/ghost/witch/vampire lore and scares so maybe that has something to do with it. I am extremely curious as to why this random grave in a small cemetery in the relative middle of nowhere has such an unsettling feature. Further, I was wondering if it is common for older graves to have the burial site behind the stone. The way that the chains are oriented would suggest that the man is buried behind the stone (it has a very clear front and back), while I am pretty certain most other graveyards bury the person in the front. I know we seem to always do it that way now, and the newer graves in that same cemetery do for sure.

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to respond!

edit: every year for my whole lifetime my family has had a tradition of going to all of our family plots on memorial day. This is probably around 15 different cemeteries in Vermont with a few also in New Hampshire. I've seen a lot of graves, and this one in particular has always seemed odd to me. It is the only one I've ever seen with chains around it like this.

Would a cremation via a norse funeral boat leave many remains? And what would be the construction and materials used in such an endeavour?

Just curious as I myself am Dutch and found out about Japanese-Dutch history recently.

I’ve a reproduction helm, and for the life of me, when I attempt to wear it capways, it just wiggles everywhere.

This is an odd one. So I had this thought the Mongols were a tribal people and wiped out China Persia Korea ect from almost no where it was “the khan” who did that not really the nation of that makes sense (no political trade economic reasons for Mongolia*)

Then the caliphate from Arabia byzitantines defeated Persia North Africa Spain ect again that was sort of Muhammad’s war not Arabia (no political trade economic reasons for Arabia*)

The Huns the Norman’s central Asian Turks ect migrating unopposed in combat

So why does that happen? theoretically they should’ve collapsed as soon as they tried to leave there homeland. Was the technology to on par with each other (Spears v swords) so it was a fair fight or what?

I have in mind specifically the movement led by Howard Scott and based upon the idea of economist Thorstein Veblen but also similar potential implementations.

I admit to not being completely understanding of the concept despite some reading. It appears to me to be viewed negatively now, mainly by someone labeling different politicians technocrats.

How did Romans conceive and conceptualise their future? Did they think (or even assume) that things like technology and philosophy would advance over time? Did this vision of the future change over time or in response to historical developments? Like for example, during the Republic did people think that Roman would expand forever while people in the later empire thought of a more stable empire?

In other words, what people and process were involved in turning raw materials into a finished, high quality, firearm during that era?

Are they the same name but written differently because of nonstandardized spelling?

Are they different names, but just happen to be spelt very similarly?

Did people change letters in names like that a lot and are there other examples?

Was it common to name your kid after something important to you but change a letter for some reason. Like, my dad is called Jason but I could call my son Jalon or something.

Why did he even name his son that? Was it a common name?

Some specific instances that come to mind are the premiers of The Rite of Spring and L'Age d'Or; particularly scenarios that involved seemingly mannered aristocracy engaging with what would've been considered boundary-pushing (or sometimes just poorly-executed and poorly-received) work. I feel like this sort of thing doesn't happen nearly as frequently (or at all) today in the art world.

I have noticed that media depictions of historical Japanese armies from the 16th century almost always feature the warriors in bright and garishly-coloured armour and garments. Akira Kurosawa's Ran is definitely a culprit of this - the samurai cavalrymen are all clad from head to toe in apple-red lamellar, and their sashimono banners are also vivid in colouration. Some of the peasant soldiers even wear blazing yellow or turquoise fabric around their armour and beneath their helmets. Other games and films etc all seem to fall into the same kind of depiction.

To begin with, was this even true or has it been fabricated for the purposes of stylization?

If it is, was it not difficult, or at least expensive, to acquire so much brightly coloured dye? Didn't common populations of Europe avoid coloured clothing for centuries for this reason? How could it be done en masse in Japan?

Secondly, was it not terribly impractical? Surely it makes your troops very easily visible from a distance and sabotages any tactical manoeuvres you attempt.

Thank you for reading.