It seems that while cats were naturals at hunting small vermin like birds and mice, dogs needed to be bred and trained specifically for the task. Why weren't foxes domesticated for this on any meaningful scale?

I recently found out that ejaculating on your partner's face goes back to the Roman times even.

I am just curious about the history of human sexuality and how it was thought of in ancients times.

Thank you and good day

I am very curious on why Germany was perceived as the worst aggressor, and severely punished after it lost. Clearly, Germany wasn't blamed only because it lost: the entire Central Powers lost, but nations other than Germany didn't get nearly as much blame.

IIRC Austria-Hungary started the war. Austria seemed to do pretty fine after WWI.

What are the consequences of vigilante justice in the historical contexts? Were there ever a war that started like that? Or some sort of political event that was triggered by it?

This kind of actions are getting media attention here in Brazil, I was wondering what does it mean.

Currently it seems to happening the most in areas with little support from the police and its targeting street muggers.

I've been doing some research for a paper but I'm struggling to find many debatable issues with how radio survived the television boom. Can anyone help lead me in the right direction?

I hope this doesn't come off as me just asking someone to do the paper for me. I did read the page on the wiki concerning the subreddit rules and also the homework-specific post. My question is sort of open ended because I don't want to rule out many answers. If more info on my part is needed, please ask!

Also, if anyone specializes in this field, I would love to private message you and ask a few questions if you're willing.

What was slavery like in Muscovy?

Is it true that peasants would sometimes run away from their land to sell themselves into slavery under a Boyar?

Is there a consensus about what, exactly, happened in the diplomatic run-up to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990?

My recollection of anecdotal evidence at the time is that Saddam Hussein's government sent ambiguous communications to April Glaspie (the U.S. ambassador to Iraq), and received an ambiguous reply: it seems that the Iraqis thought they were obliquely asking "If we were to invade and annex Kuwait, would the United States have a problem with that?" and that they received a reply that the Iraqis interpreted as "No, we would tolerate that", but I seem to recall Ambassador Glaspie taking the position that the exchange didn't go that way at all.

If there was miscommunication, which side was more at fault: the Iraqis for not being more direct, or the Americans for negligently misinterpreting the signals?

[this is a re-post of a question that I asked four months ago but which didn't get any answers] [edit: spelling]

So last week, I got some great answers to my question about the ancient Greek economy, with explanations of the products traded, the coinage systems, productive units, and even some of the historiographical debates that have taken place about these and related topics.

Today, I'd like to extend my questions to the Roman world:

• What were the common productive units? Family farms engaged in subsistence production, commercial agriculture by tenant farmers, slave-labor-dependent plantations for cash crops?

• How was labor organized in different places and different sectors? In my research on 19th-century British bakers, they never cease to refer to the history of bakers in Rome, which they view as a kind of golden age in which baking was a well-regulated, respected trade, organized into a sort of urban guild system. Did Roman cities have guilds to regulate various trades? How important was slave labor? What differences do we see between urban and rural settings, or between different parts of the empire?

• What were the major products, and how was the empire linked with trade? Was there a system of regional specialization according to comparative advantage?

• (I really should know this, sorry, but) What do we know about the Roman diet? Certainly they ate barley, olive oil, wine, and garum, but what else? Were fruit and vegetables common? Did they drink beer as well as wine? What meats were most common and popular? How important was fish in their diet?

• What were the coinage and banking systems like? Did they have means of accumulating capital or sharing risk? Was there insurance or other financial services?

• Was the city of Rome a unique case because of its size? Or was it simply a larger version of provincial towns? What were the other really large urban centers?

• To what extent can we think of the empire as an economic unit? Was there a Mediterranean-wide economic transformation with the development of the Roman empire, or did the Romans essentially continue older (Hellenic, Hellenistic, Phoenician?) economic arrangements?

Looking forward to the responses, thanks so much.

I'm reading Journey to the West by Wu Cheng'en (translated by W.J.F. Jenner), which tells the story of Tang-era (618-907) Buddhist monks going to fetch some sutras, based on traditional folktales. Along the way they meet several Taoists who are negatively portrayed, such as consorting with evil spirits or, in chapter 44, using Buddhists as serfs.

Or perhaps there was something during Wu Cheng'en's lifetime (1500-1582) that could have influenced how he wrote it?

I'm not talking about "racism" in the modern sense, because I'm aware that the Romans didn't really think that way. I'm thinking more in the sense of "the people of province X are untrustworthy thieves", or "the woman of tribe Y are licentious slatterns", or "the men of foreign country Z are brave and honorable soldiers", or "the men of B are effete and degenerate", or "the people of C are dangerous back-stabbing zealots".

If the Romans did have stereotypes like these, how do we know about those stereotypes? Were they used as narrative shorthand in dramas or comedies? Did people make assumptions about the behavior of people from a particular area that were relevant to politics or commerce?

I live in Alabama. The recent news of Michael Sam coming out as gay is a hot topic around the South right now. It's startling to many people around here that a black SEC football player would publicly announce that he is gay. It's difficult enough for people to accept that one of our SEC football stars is simply gay yet alone brave enough to admit it.

So there are countless discussions and debates and arguments and they all come down to points by those against Michael Sam, homosexuality, and coming out:

1. God and the bible says it's a sin; therefore, we should be against it.

2. Sexual immorality was a leading contributor in the downfall of numerous civilizations most notably being the fall of the Roman Empire.

I don't believe that is true, but if I google different topics that put together "sexual immorality" or "homosexuality" or "sexual perversion" and the "fall of Rome," I find articles and essays discussing it.

Talking mainly about old black-and white pictures that I do not own the negatives for, or old letters that already have fragile and yellowing paper. Nor sure this is the right subreddit, but I'm sure some of you must deal with old documents?

I watched "Hunt for the Red October" this weekend, where the US is super-concerned about this stealth submarine engine that the USSR developed. The US had found out about it from some surveillance photos. I realize it is fictional, but it made me think about how there was probably a constant information race to make sure you knew what your enemy had. So...

Was there anything huge that the US never did know about, and only found out about until after the USSR fell? Something that would have changed the Cold War if the US had known about it?

I was reading an interview with my favorite author (George RR Martin) and got to thinking about this quote; "I can't say I've done a complete medieval mindset. I haven't. In fact, if I had I think it would be too alien." I know an ok amount about the religious views/thoughts at the time (say 1350 western Europe, excluding Iberia), but what are the other aspects of of thought would seem alien to a modern American? I'm off to work, thanks for any answers!

To clarify- What I mean is did Hitler plan to stop fighting France and the UK if they had also declared war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland, whom they had sworn to protect. Everything I have ever read suggested that Hitler did not want War with the west, but a mutually beneficial relationship. He wanted Russian lands and an Alliance with the Allies would have helped secure that. Is there any evidence of this scenario occurring?

Howdy, I love this sub and was wondering: most of of the "great works" of Nazi art that are commonly discussed are films, architecture, parades, rallies and other sorts of public pageantry. Was there an accompanying movement in German literature that corresponded with or reflected the rise of the Third Reich, or was most (ideologically?) Nazi/fascist art more "public facing," such as films, parades, and architecture previously mentioned?

Specify.

As history enthusiast you realise that MLK's demands have not been new. Sudden was how the powers that be have suddenly caved in to some of these ancient demands. Why did that happen?

In Russia it's believed to have been caused by constant Soviet criticism in the UN which made America look ugly in the eyes of world's "progressive intelligentsia". We say: "that's why they acknowledged, of all people, MLK! He was religious and completely not a commie." This is also how we explain affirmative action: Lyndon Johnson and Nixon are believed to have done it to create a token black middle class to stop us from shouting "look how unjust you are! You still can tell the former serfs and former landlords by the color of the skin!"

But the internet taught me that people often see their own, national, statesmen at the crux of world's affairs. American historians will not agree that Khruschev singlehandedly abolished American racism any sooner than their Russian colleagues agree that Reagan somehow singlehandedly abolished the USSR.

So how do the serious American historians explain the sudden change of attitude towards their caste of manumitted slaves?

Hello there!

I've recently been cast in a production of The Lark, which tells the story of the trial of Joan of Arc with flashbacks to her life.

The role I've been cast in is that of La Hire, one of her captains. I've been researching, and the more I look into it the more excited I am about playing him. One of the things that strikes me is that he and Joan have an unusual sort of camaraderie which the sources I've used seem a tad vague on. So I thought I'd get the opinions of people better informed than I:

What was the relationship between Joan of Arc and La Hire like? Would we say they were friends instead of comrades in arms? Was their relationship strictly platonic?

Thanks for your help! Anything that gives me a flavour of the guy and his relationship to Joan is great!

So, watching the news these past years I'm steadily loosing all faith that revolutions actually result in positive change for the people. I'm no historian but have a good knowledge of history for someone who never studied it outside of high school, however, I can't seem to think of a non-colonial revolution that ended well for the populace. From what I recall, the most famous revolution - the French revolution was very bloody and hurt many people without necessarily helping anyone... and then Napoleon became emperor so all that blood didn't seem to accomplish much. More recently we're witness to a lot of revolutions that bring down oppressive dictators but the aftermath is chaos, a drop in quality of life and extremists coming to power.

My question is, what examples can you give me of revolutions that improved the lives of the people (again, not counting colonial revolutions, as I feel those are in a different class and are comparable to contemporary revolutions).

Especially after the Punic Wars.

Looking at some history of labor/trade movements in the U.S. (and other countries), one can't help but notice the large amount of violence that has occurred with respect to protesting workers etc. throughout the past several hundred years. To expand on the title then, I couldn't find an easy answer as to whether trade unions have generally been the victims of anti-union violence, or whether much of such violence was due to the violence of the trade unions (or any other causes?).

Right now I'm in a project to recreate parts of the city of rome from 0 AC to 180 AC; while most of the research, like architecture and society is widely available, I still have problem finding a well sourced map of rome. I found plenty of unsourced maps, most of which agree too some degree on the general outshape of the city, but are there any detailed and well sourced maps of the city of Rome from somewhere in this period?