In Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, which is set in a Benedictine abbey in the 14th century, there is a plot point turning around a vat of pig blood; in Eco's Postscript, he mentions that this was a factor in the setting of the story in the mountains, as pigs were not slaughtered until the cold months. Why would this be? Does it apply more generally to other animals? Is this a Christian-specific tradition or would other European cultures have potentially practiced it as well?

These days the(modern, as far as I know) concept of "judeo-christian values" exists in a number of places. Has any significant group of people ever tried to go a step further and also include Islam?

I read someone calling Jews killing their camp guards (referred to by this someone as law enforcement) as criminals assaulting law and order.

Arguably, a somewhat... interesting view. So, my question is simply: Was the Holocaust legal by the laws then in force, or was it technically illegal?

Back when new "worlds"/ continents were being discovered, Portugal was one of the first to start exploring the oceans. Be it the discovery of India by the European powers, the discovery of African lands, be it the new world of America, Portugal has always ben top of their game. So why is it that the average person nowadays knows it only for being a teeny country south of Spain and for Cristiano Ronaldo? If we compare Portugal to maybe the UK, both of them at one time had a global outreach in colonies, trade and politics. What makes the UK still relevant globally while Portugal isn't heard of a lot? (or is my viewpoint biased?)

I just thought about it since European powers were able to endeavor its resources to colonize the new world and establish trade in the East for promise of riches. If they can cross the Atlantic or go past the Cape of Good Hope, they can obviously go reach Mali.

I was recently discussing a map the Classical World with some friends and how many identifiable peoples there were. We tend to broadly describe them as "Germanic", "Belgae", "Celts", and others as easily digestible cultures and identities, but it doesn't seem correct.

Like with the Belgae, there were numerous different tribes like the Ambiani, Atrebates, Bellovaci, Suessiones, Viromandui, Caleti, Veliocass and more. This seems like it would be an overly broad description for a diverse group in the same way that we describe Native Americans as Souix, Algonquin, or Muskogean in that it eliminates a LOT of nuance to these European people's individual cultures.

who decides the when and where, where do they get the funds and the men? what are the various steps to officially start a crusade?

That's a lot of coal - I just can't imagine a single man mining it all that quickly! Did they really do this, or was the song exaggerating?

It seems clear that the German Empire was not an absolute monarchy, and significant restrictions existed on the monarch's power. However, the Kaiser seems to be more powerful than someone like the ceremonial monarch of the U.K., so exactly how powerful was he? Compared to someone like the president of the U.S., how much authority did this man wield?

The secession speeches that preceded the southern secession clearly state that slavery was the reason state legislatures voted to secede, but typical southerner whites were not slave owners. That makes me wonder whether they could be convinced to secede and go to war to support slavery. Was the rhetoric used to draw most southern whites into the Civil War similar to that expressed in the secession speeches or were they more likely to hear arguments about states' rights, oppression by northern elites, etc. I am not asking if typical southern whites were less racist, because racism was clear, but racism continues without slavery. My question is, were typical white men convinced to join the Confederate Army to protect the rights of the elites (e.g. similar to working class members voting for low taxes on the wealthy now) or did they hear other arguments to motivate them to join the cause.

One thing that's always surprise me about cave paintings is how they've lasted countless millennia. What material did they use?

Do I likely speak German and Hebrew and Yiddish? If I meet a fellow Jew from Warsaw or Kiev, would we have to fall back on Hebrew or do we likely speak the "same" Yiddish? Was Hebrew reserved solely for study and worship, or would I likely live a tri-lingual existance?

I’m not completely new to Anglo-Saxon history, but I’m looking for something pretty comprehensive that goes into good detail about the relationships/tensions between different kingdoms, as well as giving a good overview of the overall period up to 1066.

“The Anglo-Saxon World” by N.J Higham and M.J Ryan has good reviews, but if anyone has read anything superb, I’m open for suggestions.

My gf was curious as to whether Covid-19 is the first time UK citizens have been banned from the US. The only previous times I could think of where that might have happened was the War of 1812 and perhaps the Revolutionary War. But then, both wars involved British citizens who didn't want to be British (due to revolution or draft-dodging) which might imply that a private UK citizen would be welcomed in the US.

Could a merchant from the UK just turn up to do some trading during this time?

Wikipedia describes the Titanomachy as a conflict Between an older pantheon, based on Othrys, and a younger one, from Olympus. To me, this reads like an allegory for an actual religious conflict, between people from those two places, In which the Olympian-worshippers subsumed the 'Othryians' into their own religion. Is there any basis for that interpretation?

Were there ever people who worshipped the Othrys pantheon exclusively, before being "converted" to the Olympian pantheon?

Were there queens in the Muslim/Asian empires? Why is it that the most notable queens I know are British/European