Recent biographical and fictional films often emphasize the link, or at least the dynamic tension, between brilliance and mental illness. The trope typically has a groundbreaking protagonist fighting against their mental demons to triumph, in their field and against their own illness.

Is this trope of brilliance being just a step away from madness purely a modern Western invention? When did it arise? Did the link necessitate a scientific interpretation of mental illness, or were there earlier versions of this trope before modern medical thought became mainstream?

Thanks in advance!

Hello I was just curious to know if anyone know what was generally understood about conception, contraception and the reproductive system during the medieval/renaissance/Tudor times.

​

For example what was understood about conceiving a child? Obviously they knew it was through sex but what was understood about the internal ongoings? Also was contraception a thing and if there was any form of contraception used. Also what was understood about women's menstrual cycles and would have have made sanitary products?

​

Thanks!

So, I'm just asking, "Why is circumcision a thing?"

The example that comes to mind for many people is the journalist who threw his shoes at George W Bush during a press briefing. My lay take is that the patriot act made the security for US federal politicians much higher compared to past and shoes became sort of the only ”throwable” object protestors can easily get past security. I’m curious about older historical instances/instances in other countries of shoe throwing or throwing objects at politicians as forms of protest, and whether the things thrown has evolved over time.

Following the establishment of the Latin Empire in 1204 after the fourth crusade, did the Byzantine governmental institutions continue under western leadership, or was the governance of the Empire more closely modelled on Western European states with some Imperial window dressing? Were any Greeks entrusted with authority or were important positions held entirely by Westerners. Finally did the Empire’s founders believe they were restoring the Roman Empire as it had existed in the West prior to 476 with the Emperor as the protector of the Latin Church.

I remember from the stories he once made a crude sandwich of a cut of beef and two slices of bread from the cupboard. What else had he?

So I keep seeing people in my country (Australia) saying the Government needs to install more and more EV chargers and that it should be a government push.

However I have looked and it seems Horses grew organically, then when the motor car came along running petrol and diesel, it was an organic independent business growth.

Was there any countries that wholesale rolled out petrol stations to support cars historically?

I know the Netherlands has spent the last few decades putting in more Bicycle infrastructure, including infrastructure to charge Electric bicycles, but as far as I'm aware that was more in the way of credits to independent operators. However Google translate didn't work on a great deal of websites for me to get a clear picture.

I also did find some sites indicating that in the oil rich Middle East nations then there was a big push by the governments to build petrol stations as part of the rapid expansion of automobiles, however I can't find much evidence of this happening long term and these staying in "Government" hands.

I say "Government" as in some countries it's harder to draw the line between Business and Government.

But basically, is there a historical precedent of governments paying for, installing, and running the infrastructure? As that's one argument I see of "Put a charger on every light pole and give us free power!" Which would make the government the runner of this type of infrastructure.

So is there a system out there like this that has worked for a long time?

I live in LA and on February 24 1942 the military attacked a ballon and the full city went under lockdown. I have never seen information in a textbook and the only people who know about it because the reenactment

I know that sources for it can be a bit unreliable, and there are many different versions of the stories. But kinda just looking for one big reference for all (or at least a decent amount) of the most popular Knights of the Round Table, their backstories, traits and lore surrounding them, etc.

Basically, just writing a story that's supposed to kinda be a modern retelling of some Arthurian legends (none in particular as of yet), and wanting to go a bit deeper and see what's out there.

Hello,

If one takes a cursory look at modern media and the stereotypes present, one comes away with the notion that people in the 60s/70s never shaved their genitalia and that was considered attractive. Further, from looking at modern pornography it is clear that there is a trend / preference for clean shaven, if not altogether waxed genitalia. Is the preference for clean shaven genitalia entirely new, or is there a cyclical pattern in terms of society’s sexual grooming preferences?

Further, if the media is the entity “pushing” these fetishes, why do they do so? To clarify, if people are “enjoying” a certain grooming standard, what causes the porn industry to change that standard and how does media have the capability to shape our sexual preferences to such a degree?

Why is it always Germany, Japan, and Italy?? Italy was by far the weakest of the three countries and a good argument could be made that Romania had a stronger army than Italy. Romania also had huge gains in the USSR before getting bogged downed and then slaughtered like the Germans. So why was Romania never considered an "axis power"????

It always struck me that Iranian folk histories, immortalised in the Shahnameh, seem to have had some sort of amnesia when it came to the pre-Sassanid rulers. Indeed, the Achaemenids and Parthians are not explicitly referred to in Ferdowsi's epic.

In place of the Achaemenids and Parthians, Persian tradition tells of mythical dynasties like the Kayanians, which seems, if I am not mistaken, at least paritally based in Sassanid understanding of their own history. Did the Sassanids literally not know about the Achaemenids except for these highly mythologised forefathers? I assume they knew about the Arsacids since they directly preceded them, but was their clear memory of the Teispid/Achaemenid era?

If not, how did such a tremendously important and influential part of Iranian history all but disappear from their cultural memory, and if they were remembered, why did these narratives of mythical dynasties exist? (Retconning Avestan tradition with actual history perhaps?)

It would seem odd, for example, for the Sassanids to not have been aware of the existence of Cyrus. For one thing, they were aware of Alexander and reviled the tumult that his conquest visited upon a once-mighty Iranian Empire, for another, they interacted extensively with Jews, for whom Cyrus was an immensely important figure recorded in scripture as an agent of the divine. Is Cyrus as a historical figure, with that name, ever explicitly referred to in Sassanid (or post-Sassanid) sources?

There are also Sassanid monuments on the site of Achaemenid ones, as if evoking their legacy, such as Naqsh-e-Rostam. This place, however, is named in Persian tradition for the mythical Rostam, not any Achaemenid ruler. How clear a picture did Iranians of late antiquity and the Islamic period have of their history?

In the last scenes of JoJo Rabbit, the main character Jojo finds out from his 10 year old friend that Hitler had committed suicide, but this all happens even as his entire town is mounting a defense against an allied invasion. My question is:

- Is this accurate? Was there still a Nazi effort to defend against allied forces even after Hitler had committed suicide?

- If that is accurate, why? At that point the war seems clearly lost, so why did they try to put up a defense, only to lose more lives and already incredibly scarce resources?

- Side question: In the movie, the "defense" is depicted as putting a gun in basically everyone's hands, and sending them towards the fire. Is that an accurate depiction of the final days of the Nazi war effort, or was there more organization than that?

Hi Everyone,

In 1717 King George of Britain offered a pardon to pirates who surrendered to a governor within the following year. It seems like many pirates accepted this pardon but quickly went back to piracy. Two examples being Blackbeard and Stede Bonnet who accepted pardons from the governor of North Carolina only to resume piracy within the year. Another example, Calico Jack Rackham asked for a pardon from governor Woodes Rogers in 1719 but again, soon returned to piracy.

Considering the wealth some of these pirates must have accumulated and the extreme risk associated with continuing, why didn't they retire for good after accepting the pardon?

​

Source for the pardon:

King George I of Great Britain. “1717, September 5. A Proclamation for Suppressing of Pirates,” in British royal proclamations relating to America, 1603-1783, edited by Great Britain Sovereigns and Clarence Saunders Brigham, 176-177. New York: B. Franklin, 1911.

I am currently reading 'Tai-Pan' by James Clavell, a fictional (albeit historically inspired) book about the founding of Hong Kong.

At one point in the book, a dossier containing advisement of foreign policy for Russian expansion is intercepted. In short, the dossier declares that Russia use their territory of Alaska as a entry point for a mass migration of their nomadic peoples to settle the North American continent and potentially become warriors for Russian interest to fight against the Americans in the Western territories, if the Monroe Doctrine is ever invoked.

So my question is – is there any historical equivalent to this plot?

I am not an expert on Rastafarian theology, this question came to mind — embarrassingly — because today's featured article on Wikipedia is about Rastafarianism.

I believe that Haile Selassie was an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian and Rastas believe that he was (is?) God incarnate. That is a pretty plain violation of the First Commandment, the Nicene Creed and by my understanding the Second Commandment as well. How did he respond to this publicly and do we know (from diaries, recollections of others etc) how he felt privately, if those two things differ.

Further, in 1974 the communist Dergue took over Ethiopia and overthrew the monarchy, imprisoned the royal family and killed him, though they claimed he died of natural causes and the execution order wasn't confirmed until many years later. I can't imagine how horrific it would appear to someone for their living God to be dethroned, humiliated and murdered, wars and uprisings have been started over much less.

I realize this is a rather broad question, but I'm curious. How might a Roman navy engage an enemy fleet, for example? Or a Byzantine navy in the Middle Ages? Did the ships just ram one another, fire arrows, or something else?

I've read that the Gulag Archipelago gave figures of 60 million deaths, whereas official Soviet records apparently put these at a few million. My question is - how accurate are the latter figures, and is there any way of verifying them?

(There is, no doubt, an answer in this sub that's already been given, but my searching came up blank)