I've heard that before animal domestication reproduction wasn't understood and people thought pregnancy was just a miraculous event. As such, it's said that women used to be more highly respected for this "magical" ability. After people began to understand the role of men in this, females began to be more strictly controlled in order to harness this activity in much the same way as their livestock. Subsequently women lost their exalted status and became second-class.

How accurate is this? Is there any way of knowing the reasons why women may have lost status due to reproductive coercion? What may have played a role in shaping these beliefs?

Was talking with the roommate about whether an alien ant-like drone species or a pack of religious zealots would win in a hypothetical war of equal resources, and the question of innovation came up in the discussion as a possible huge advantage for the religious group if the zealots could innovate.

So, the question is: does warring for a religious cause historically account for more, no, or less innovation than, for instance, a call for independence, for land grabbing, or civil war (or any one of these examples exclusively)?

If there seems to be no discernible difference in innovation, a fine follow-up question would be where does a difference in innovation occur (if ever?--economically, sure, but other than that.) during wartime?

I was job hunting and my mom was watching TV and heard 555 be the start of a number. When did this start?

I just read an article from the Independent on Israeli-US spying (in first comment). For years prior to the founding of Israel, the article suggests, "zionist" agents were heavily involved in clandestine activities within the US. This is the first article on this topic that wasn't complete rubbish and here is my question: who and where were the actors involved in shaping western policy involved in creating the state of Israel and to what ends would they go?

Rum, coffee & tobacco; the three intoxicating things which helped build some of the largest empires history may ever know.

But was there any specific reason why there was no demand for things like Marijuana or Coca on the continent like there was for Coffee, Tobacco & Rum? What made things like Tobacco & Rum blow up in popularity there, but substances like Marijuana, which was already known about for more than a millennium, and which could be easily transported through concentrated forms like hash, not? And on the opposite end of the spectrum, why didn't it happen with Coca, which IIRC, was only a little more powerful than Coffee, but still possessing that "New World" charm & intrigue?

Is it just a case of how the chips fall? I mean, I would think that the merchantmen back then, who saw the value of Tobacco & Coffee enough to market it, would be able to see the same value in either Marijuana or Coca.

EDIT: And for the record, I know hemp was grown extensively in the early American colonies, and no, I am not interested in that or the industrial uses of Cannabis in general. Purely the recreational use & market. Of which I would assume Europeans would be familiar with given their interactions with the Middle East & India. I mean, they picked up coffee from there (talking about the Middle East specifically here, although I know it was also picked up from Ethiopia as well), so I'm curious if there's any reason why they didn't also pick up hash/marijuana from there to sell back home.

Lately historical combat has been getting very popular, with people pointing out sword fighting "mistakes" in novels and movies becoming almost as ubiquitous as their modern equivalents rambling about "trigger discipline"...

Now, how applicable would that really be to a soldier fighting in a Late Medieval battle? A few of the books seem to be slightly outside of that time period, and have a much more targeted demographics (upper class duelling). So while they might not be as removed as smallsword or Karate, they could significantly deviate from actual usage. Never mind that we're concentrating (obviously) on actual published books, which might be a case of listening to those who shout the loudest (a medieval "One Neat Trick about Disemboweling Your Enemy They Don't Want You to Know").

I've come across claims from modern nudists, that an apparently common scenario of farming naked in the ancient world, was that, as described in the title, they were very poor and it was actually an accepted reality that it was important not to wear out one's clothes unnecessarily when working hard in the field. I have read that in various ancient settings, one may have had only one pair of regular clothes, and possibly a second one for special occasions only.

There might also be other scenarios (outside of poverty and necessity), that prompted naked farming and I think it would be an interesting subject to find clarification on.

What evidence of nude farming in the ancient world (in civilizations such as the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Hebrew, Assyrian-Babylonian) do we really have to support this claim, and what, if anything do we know the reasons for it?

Also, if any knowledge exists on the topic, is it clear whether there was gender separation in such settings, for 'moral' or 'modesty' reasons?

Considering how important up-to-date information is, what strategies did pre-industrial people use to speed communication faster than man on horseback? It seems like it would have been crazy difficult to run an empire or fight a war while reliant solely on mounted messengers.

Wouldn't it be quicker for them to capture the city?

Roman history is the bomb, and apologies if this has been asked before, but in terms of socio-political, economic, military and cultural differences, what really were the starkest contrasts between the 2 eras that define their separated existences during their respective reigns?

I understand the whole 'Republic built Rome, Empire destroyed it' argument but never learned the specifics as to how, why and when etc... any comments appreciated :)

Today I came across the Teretegenic (sp)? table, that outlined the categorisation of sexual activities in the Roman world, in it, it states that to be penetrated in the anus or to give oral sex is frowned upon and hated.

So, my question is, how did the relationships between an older and younger men work if the two categories they could do were frowned upon? and, was it frowned upon to give anal sex/receive felatio?

reading about the politics surrounding the fourth crusade. It seems like a fatal mistake to not have disfigured the future Alexius IV in some way as to make him ineligible to the throne. Alexius III can't have had any moral reason for refraining as he had already blinded his brother.

Would it have mattered if Alexius IV was blinded? would it have stopped him from seeking help from the Crusaders? I thought physical disfigurement forbade one from becoming Emperor, but perhaps I'm over emphasizing it's importance.

Was there widespread support for the IRA, or did the general population condemn the violence? What did the major politicians say about the situation in ulster/northern ireland? How did it affect the population of Ireland in their opinion of peaceful reunion? What changed for the economies of the IRA controlled afterwards, and the people?

I always hear how they were fantastic, and they preserved the earth while we destroyed it, we gave then a bunch of diseases and waged war while they wanted peace. All things that we modern Americans disapprove of and put the Cherokee in a good light. But is there anything they did that would alarm us or we would dislike?

This could apply to other tribes, I just picked the Cherokee as I have truly beer heard something bad about them.

I understand that these two people are viewed differently in Latin America to how they are viewed in the rest of the world. When describing them as heroes and villains I am referring to the way in they are commonly portrayed in Europe/USA/Canada etc.

I recall hearing the idea that at least one of the gospels was written in Rome. If so, it seems strange to me that they would write it in Greek. So my question is: what fraction of authors in Rome wrote in Greek in the first half of the second century CE? Additionally, what fraction of readers in Rome could read Greek? What fraction of the population of Rome could read Latin? How did popular authors of the time get their work reproduced?

In the vein of the recent Miyamoto thread, I got to thinking about who is considered the greatest medieval knight of all time. "The Guardian of Scotland" had many tales woven about him in The Wallace and Braveheart but how many are true? How skilled was he as a fighter? As a commander? I would love to learn more about him.

Wouldn't surprising their victims be better? Were these flags just a matter of honour, that is a warning to their impending victims? Or were these flags actually not used very often at all?