From what I understand, the romantization of nature is something fairly new to humanity. Did the people of olden days stand in awe of nature as well?

Did the greeks watch the sun set and rise, simply because of the aesthetically pleasing aspect of it? Are there any ancient stories of people finding beauty in views of vast mountains, valleys, forests etc?

I understand that this has become more of a "thing" with the onset of urbanisation, light pollution and the like. But was it a thing back when people slept under a clear sky as well?

EDIT: Some spelling.

A question in an exam I got recently and I was just wondering what peoples opinions are on this.

I've seen depictions of muslims being seen as "demon worshippers" and christians as "corrupted people of the book", but I'd love to have a more in-depth view of people's persepective.

Thanks!

i recently re-played Call Of Duty: World at War and in several moments in the russian campaign you can hear your comrades yell this.

I was just thinking about written music and it got me thinking...what was the first instrument where it was decided that "This will be A" and "This will be C"?

There must've been a first instrument that all other written music was based off, so what was it?

Sorry if this is a silly/unsuitable question for this sub.

Did pirates of the 1500s-1800s build their own ships? Did they mostly sail prizes? It seems like it would be a massive investment of capital and knowledge (different from the knowledge of how to sail the ships) to build a ship from the keel up.

I was reading an article talking about populations of the Natives before 1492, and North America is estimated to have had a population of about 3.8 million, where as Peru alone had an estimated population of 9 million.

I'm curious if South America was really significantly more populated, or if the population estimates are skewed for some reason, such as North American civilzations being harder to verify for some reason. If South America really had a massive population in comparison to the North, Why?

Edit- I realize people will argue over exact sizes, but even if North actually had 7 mil, and Peru really only had 8, that's still a massive difference in population density.

I've heard that the tradition originated in Umayyad Spain. Is this true?

It seems like most of the stuff he is credited with was actually accomplished by LBJ. I know he had the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I have heard mixed reviews on his handling of that as well.

What exactly did he accomplish as President?

When did it dawn on people that in some places in the world it was night while in others it was day simultaneously?

I've read a lot of books by Bernard Cornwell (the Grail Quest novels), and in those books he goes great lengths to ensure historical accuracy. At the end of every book he talks about what he made up for the sake of the story, and what he wrote which was true to history.

In his books he heaps praise on the longbow, telling that it could more often than not punch through mail and gambeson, and even plate armour in the right circumstances. However, when I discuss the bow with other medieval warfare buffs many of them completely disagree, and some even go as far to say that "the longbow was nothing special compared to other bows". They conclude that it absolutely could not pierce steel plate armour, and only if the bowman was extremely close, accurate, and lucky could it pierce a quality mail shirt with a padded jack underneath.

When I read about some of the major battles of the 100 years war (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt) it is clear that while the bows were excellent for disrupting cavalry charges, the more prevalent deciding factors were the terrain, weather, and bad French leadership that gave England the victories. Also note that while the longbows brought down the French horses, they did have to charge uphill, and in some cases over pits and caltrops and in the mud which would have reduced the speed by a significant amount.

So is it true that the English longbow is nothing special? Would the English have fared any worse had they equipped their archers with shorter, lighter bows in place of the specifically tall, thick, yew bows? After all, an arrow will pierce any unarmored man, but if the longbow is just the same as any other bow in regards to armour penetration then what really makes it so special? Of course, it had long range, but I've read that so did crossbows, with some late period crossbows being able to outdistance them. I know that might sound a little too r/HistoricalWhatIf-y but it's more to illustrate the point that perhaps the longbows praise is unfairly given when other bows could have gotten the job done almost or just as well.

I know this is maybe unanswerable due to other factors but I have been thinking about how capitalism turned people away from traditional sources of power or authority, towards the individual or private entities. Also this maybe a stupid question, but did capitalism place more importance on money than previous social systems? I ask this because it seems like currency would always have considerable importance for any society. Finally, did people always have concerns over "the economy" as we do now? It seems that the amorphous yet powerful concept of god has been replaced by these number systems we have created (GDP, etc), and we are always trying to do things in the name of the economy that will make us all happier or blessed with more stuff if we do it right.

I know this last point is pretty out there, just thought I'd throw it out here. Also sorry if this belongs in social science instead of here.

I am bilingual in Arabic and English. Although its not exactly the same, I don't have a hard time reading Arabic texts that is a thousand year old, while its impossible to do that with English. I can not speak of other languages as I haven't really experienced them.

I was reading up on Daniel Webster and his declining WHH's offer of Vice Presidency made me wonder the two questions above. I appreciate all responses!

In population, land area, military, anything and everything. I understand that height has a pretty arbitrary definition, so pick what every criterion for that, and it would be nice if you said what you used for peak and why.

I'm guessing this question gets asked alot, so link me if it is.

As always, Thanks! This sub has been supporting my belief in 'you learn something new every day' for quite some time now.