The first thing that comes to my mind is that fact the mass rape could occur during war times. I'm thinking there's no way they thought these women enjoyed being undeniably raped and enjoyed it. Also, no one ever stopped to ask a women who has never had an orgasm how is it possible she has children. Did a women's thought really mean that little? It seems so obvious to me an untrained professional but what was the disconnect back then that prevent people from seeing this?

What I mean is that, Why was it Prussia that came to dominate Germany and not more well established regional powers such as Saxony, Bavaria, Hannover or Hesse?

While doing an assignment the other day on foreign direct investment in Latin America, it occurred to me that it is rather odd that we use this term to refer to a region that never had any contact with the classical "Latin" empire. Is this just semantics, or is there some connection to the Roman Empire that I'm missing?

I've seen Genghis Khan spelled a number of different ways (Genghis and Chingiz are the two I've encountered most often) in various sources, and as I understand it, there's no one standard way to translate Mongolian names to English. Is one or the other of these spellings out-dated? Does the English-language historical community have a preferred spelling for this name?

When Europeans first came into contact with both the Native Americans and Africans they were well ahead of them technologically, culturally, etc. Why didn't these tribes form together to advance and prosper like people did in Europe and Asia?

All i can find are videos and books that start when the Europeans showed up. Does anybody know where i can find information about Native American history up to the point of the Europeans coming? Thanks.

And I know they're separate groups but I was curious of both. I'm wondering if there is any writing describing either of their speech?

I see allot of questions about north American slavery. I guess it's 12 Years a slave raising the issue. Here's my question:

Watching the movie and reading the Wikipedia article on slavery, it is just as terrible as I had imagined. One thing that strikes me is that the close to abolition we get in North American history, the more human were the slaves in the eyes of the whites. Please understand me, in no way am I trying to whitewash what happened. I'm just saying that from reading Solomon Thorpe's memoirs and looking at paintings from mid-late 1800, many slaves were living a life of hard labor and deprivation of all liberties. But they were still referred to as human beings, and I read that there were laws against how bad a slave could be treated (which was still really bad).

So my question is, when in history did slaves go from just being treated like livestock tortured and killed for no reason, into being human beings forced into hard labor?

The sport of jousting is currently the official state sport of Maryland. Did jousting have a significant presence in colonial Maryland? Also, if so, why?

I recently heard anecdotally that there were a group of Monks in the Lugano region (now Switzerland) that were subsequently ordered executed by the Pope. This story was related to me by someone who lived in the region, but I can't seem to find any serious reference to psychedelic use amongst Catholic Monks, nor execution of Catholic Monks by papal decree.

If there isn't any record of this happening, does anyone know what incident this anecdote may have germinated from? I'm more interested in the Monks and their possible execution than the psychedelics, if that is any help.

From what I know the god Dionysus was often depicted carrying a thyrsus. I'm having a hard time finding a lot of concrete information on exactly what this was.

1. Was it used as a weapon as well as a religious symbol? Or was it just a religious symbol like the papal ferula?

2. Are there any existing examples of an actual thyrsus?

3. What type of materials were they made out of?

Thank you for your time, and if you would like to share any interesting information about Dionysus I'd be open to reading it.

Or is that just a made up Hollywood thing.

I'm wondering, because there's very little information I can find regarding different countries within the League of Nation's opinions on the matter, just what they resolved to do in the end. Did they support the general consensus of condemnation or did they advocate for neutrality?

I have been reading about the The Troubles in Northern Ireland but have been curious about all those who would have been displaced by the violence (refugees and those who chose to migrate to avoid the violence).

Genocides such as the Armenian and Holodomor are strongly denied as to not have happened by certain groups of people. People even claim that the Holocaust didn't happen. But are there any genocides that people strongly claimed happened, but legitimately didn't happen?

After playing Black Flag (not the most accurate source of info, but regardless), I had some thoughts about naval trade after going around the West Indies. After looking on Wikipedia, I found that a good amount of trade routes in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are curved. I'm just wondering, why, after the innovations of motor-based sailing and GPS, do we not just beeline straight to our destination? I'm sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong subreddit.