As a Belgian I have always been taught that 16th century physician Andreas Vesalius was the first to pioneer dissection of humans, thus heralding in a new era of anatomical science and putting the Middle Ages firmly behind him. The pop history goes that he had to overcome some initial opposition from the church, as dissection was seen as a desecration of the body, so instead they had to rely on texts from Greek and/or Roman authors. That's what they told us in school. But how true is this? Was there really no one in the centuries before who felt the need or the urge to cut open a body and see what was there, for whatever reason? And was "the church" really opposed to any and all dissections, even in a good cause?

I understand how the European powers dominated the Americas but the Asian empires were still their technological equals at this time while having larger populations. How were Europeans still able to colonize and maintain naval supremacy over the region while being on the other side of the planet during the late 16th and early 17th century. The Suez wasn't around either.

I'm working on a board game and the theme is the Pirates. I have a few characters in this game, and I'd like to create a background for each of them.

I thought of making Wanted Posters as they made in the manga "One Piece". But I asked myself if these posters really existed for the Pirates of this time (I'm talking about the Golden Age of Piracy, so 1650-1700 I think) in this shape or in another. Or is it pure fiction ?

I'm reading 1587: A Year of No Significance and they offhandedly mentioned an attempted assassination plot, yet when I tried to find out more about assassinations in the Forbidden City it came up with either Assassins Creed or a plot in the 20th Century.

I've always wondered this especially since it seemed the eastern roman, Greek speaking empire lasted longer and was wholly more influential.

Had a huge debate over this question and wanted more opinions from historians.

Edit: I'm a high school senior, and the debate extends from a disagreement I had with my AP World History teacher sophomore year. We still discuss this question (her believing it is not an example of containment, my belief that it is a prime example), and I would like other opinions to show her on the last day of school.

Howdy, all! I am a college student currently engrossed in Late Antique Rome and am trying to absorb as much as I can in regards to that subject. I'm looking for recommendations on scholarly works that describe the later Roman Empire as well as the transformation of the Roman state into the successor kingdoms that made up the early Medieval period.

I currently have an interest in basically all aspects of this broad period, so I would definitely be excited by books dealing with the Christianization of the Empire, economic reforms, diplomacy and dealings with migratory peoples, the advent of Islam and dealings with Sassanian Persia, the arts of the period, the transformation of the Greek East into the Byzantine state, and etc.

Thank you in advance.

Something I always wondered about since I watched Platoon.

thank you.

If not, were there any authors or clerics who opposed it?

I've heard of people like the Inca mummifying relatives and kings, but haven't heard of any north americans doing so

I am trying to become much better acquainted with the history of philosophy, and major perspectives from the presocratics and ancient Greeks to more modern perspectives (Kant, Schopenauer, Nietzsche, Bergson, etc.). So far I have read Durant's "The Story of Philosophy" and Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy". I found Durant to be wonderfully written but at times incomplete as to other major thinkers, while Russell feels a bit more biased while also omitting some major questions I would have wanted him to answer.

What other textbooks, or volumes are considered the best resources to become more knowledgeable about this fascinating area of study?

Let's take a young man (about 20) from a Nordic country who wants to volunteer in the waffen SS.

What are his motives? I believe they were quite different from today's neo-nazis?

What is he required to do to be accepted? Health, physical fitness, intelligence, some proof of ethnic background?

What choice did he have if he wanted to serve in specific branch of the army, like the infantry, or tank troops?

What was training like?

I've been reading the Wikipedia pages on the Kingdom, and somethings don't make sense to me. The monarchy was overthrown by a European militia with the support of US Marines and a US warship- a sizeable force compared to a native army at the time... but Hawai'i wasn't any native state- it's mentioned that they had two modern naval shipyards which added to a fleet of

"29 Dreadnoughts, 9 cruisers, 3 British cruisers and 11 ships from the wooden era".

And the army was reformed with-

"Several Gatling guns were purchased, a cavalry was established and the infantry was modernized. All major ports in Hawaii received a pair of guns to defend the port, Honolulu Fort was also rearmed".

Additionally the Queen had been doing a whistle stop tour of the Kingdom finding out if she had support for a more assertive constitution and apparently found that the native population was massively supportive. Why did they submit so easily to the US- when the US wasn't even especially powerful in the pacific at this point?

So what's going on? How did such a powerful force get overthrown by untrained settlers and few dozen marines?

T92VGpH4WxmKQ3HG90XlYfkZBEV6QG9p27ZnwMEiwsx7QiNurpg1ucGumgtA1xT92VGpH4WxmKQ3HG90XlYfkZBEV6QG9p27ZnwMEiwsx7QiNurpg1ucGumgtA1xT92VGpH4WxmKQ3HG90XlYfkZBEV6QG9p27ZnwMEiwsx7QiNurpg1ucGumgtA1xT92VGpH4WxmKQ3HG90XlYfkZBEV6QG9p27ZnwMEiwsx7QiNurpg1ucGumgtA1xT92VGpH4WxmKQ3HG90XlYfkZBEV6QG9p27ZnwMEiwsx7QiNurpg1ucGumgtA1xT92VGpH4WxmKQ3HG90XlYfkZBEV6QG9p27ZnwMEiwsx7QiNurpg1ucGumgtA1xT92VGpH4WxmKQ3HG90XlYfkZBEV6QG9p27ZnwMEiwsx7QiNurpg1ucGumgtA1xT92VGpH4WxmKQ3HG90XlYfkZBEV6QG9p27ZnwMEiwsx7QiNurpg1ucGumgtA1xT92VGpH4WxmKQ3HG90XlYfkZBEV6QG9p27ZnwME

When the Southern states succeeded from the Union, there members resigned from the House of Representatives and the Senate. How did the Northern states deal with this during the Civil War? Were those seats (namely in the House) split amongst Northern loyal states? Were they kept open in case a Southern state decided to send representatives? Namely, how did this impact the election of 1862 when the Civil War was happening?

Also, I'm assuming the answer will be that since the government considered it a rebellion and that the Confederates states were not recognized as a separate country, the seats were likely left empty. Why then during Reconstruction was it not as simple as once the War ended allow them to send representatives back?

I apologize if this seems overly simple. I haven't been able to accurately put my thoughts on paper, but I am really curious about this philosophical dealing with the Confederate States in terms of the Congress.

Let's say England or what we'd call Germany today. I use "middle ages" broadly but I'm interested in who the student body was at a place like Cambridge or Köln around the time of their founding. I recognize that it would have been children of the aristocracy/well-to-do, but:

How? Who would have told them to go or how would they have known to go?

To what end? Now many of us get an education to get a job but what would have been their impetus?

What did having a university education equate to? What did they come there seeking? Actual knowledge and wisdom or to accomplish some goal, as we do today?

Apologies if this is the wrong subreddit.

As a child of the 80s I have vague memories of the existence of the Moral Majority and it being quite influential. I've also heard a bit about Reagan's big-tent conservatism strategy.