I know this probably varies wildly based on social position and other things, but the question is inspired by the history of upper-class women marrying for socially strategic reasons, often arranged without her input. When did the acceptance of the woman herself become normalized, and before that, were there ever socially acceptable ways for a woman to avoid an arranged marriage?

As title say - I saw information that Catholic Church was against burning of witches and that witches were burned only at civil courts. Reasoning being that one had to belive in witchcraft to attack witches, and C.C. saw witchcraft as non-existing, since Devile can not give power God can.

Is it true? If yes who were those people burned during Early Modern Age? Heretics of what kind?

History is so diverse and influential that it can be really difficult for me to know where to start learning. In high school it was easy because the information was taught to me (although biased) and so I saw further information to gain the full picture.

Now that I am out of school, trying to study history is difficult. Trying to find a proper starting point, or even WHAT to study. I am interested in so much that it can be a challenge even picking a subject. If this is the right subreddit to do so, how did you historians go about starting, and how did you choose what you wanted out of the vast amount of topics to choose from?

I’ve read up on what I can online about Helena Blavatsky and the general teachings, but most of what I can find is very general and most of the books I find are very expensive. I can tell it has a lot in common with Buddhism, but a lot of sources refer to it (Theosophy) as a religious movement and HHDL seems to usually reject the idea that Buddhism is a religion and more of a science of the mind. I’m very intrigued by this and would like to know more as it seems to line up with a lot of my own personal ideology.

Apologies if my ignorance is somewhat laid bare here but I’m genuinely curious.

Unless I'm wrong, southern or far southern India was a huge and important exporter of luxury products during roman imperial era in the west, being most goods exported expensive products of animal and vegetal origin (like spices); rather than valuable metals, jewels or manufactured crafts.

I tried to play a miniature war game called The Bellis Antiquitatis and after getting interested in the ancient Tamil or southern indian army lists, I got surprised for the option of including jungle hunter-gatherer units (adivasi) in the army list. Also, the aesthetics of professional miniature companies usually represent very light armored warriors or just covered with kilts or loincloths. I know that in warmer climates people get some pieces of clothing off, but seemed like specially vulnerable armies to stand before some possible conqueror or raiders like southern arabian kingdoms, Kushan, parthian or roman fleets.

Did they need such defenses against sea invaders or prevailed a sort of "cosmopolitan trade points" among continental powers??

We know how important the T34 was at the end of the war, but why did the soviets decide to build so many light tanks before the war, most of the being destroyed at the beggining of Barbarossa.

Straight crucifix swords are commonly associated with European cultures. By the First Crusade however, curved swords largely supplanted straight swords for military use in contemporary eastern cultures. In East Asia, the dao began replacing the jian even as early as the Han dynasty. Indian and Arabian cultures also adopted curved swords (the talwar and shamshir respectively) comparatively earlier than the Europeans. What factors led to this difference in sword design philosophy?

When you See maps of ancient Europe, roman territories are most likely colored in red. Also roman legionaries seem to like red in clothing and decoration. The eastern roman/ byzantine Empire on the Other hand is depicted in purple. I think i heard the term 'born in purple' as well. Where does it come from? Is it just modern Interpretation?

By “the history of historical education” I mean the ways in which history has been taught in schools throughout history

I’m not aware of anyone who specializes in this and so I’m hoping at least one person here can point me in the right direction

Hi all,

This is an area that really fascinates me. My wife is Taiwanese so I have a personal connection with this topic.

My main question is, why does the PRC believe that Taiwan is part of China? I know it has to do with the 1992 Consensus but even that has a controversial background.

Are there any historical, logical reasons for why China would claim Taiwan?

Obviously, the Chinese Civil War ended in victory for the PRC and a loss for the ROC, but that is all. The ROC government fled to Taiwan and no other military actions were taken. How then can China claim Taiwan belongs to the one China policy?

So i finally got my ancestry results back and I always been told my mom dad was native and my dads great grandma was Native but no native popped up for my results . Supposedly my moms dad and my fathers great grandmother both had “good hair” and lighter skin .My mom also took the test and no native was in her also and her dad was just mixed with a white father and black mother . Do African Americans especially down south have a history of being told they have native in them? I know a lot of other Black people who say they have native but it never shows up in results . Every time I asked about my grandpa and great great grandmother my family always talked about how good and long their hair was and I think that’s a problem because it’s basically saying good hair = not black . Is it any significant to why a lot of African Americans are told they have native ancestry?

We tend to pronounce more familiar place names in a more anglicised manner - "Frahnce" and "PAR-iss" instead of "Frongss" and "Par-EE", foe instance.

Yet Calais, a city that was English for centuries, is pronounced "CAL-ay", pretty much as per French.

Western nations like the UK and France immediately declared war upon Germany following the invasion of Poland but did nothing in response to the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 Sep 1939 and the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states in the spring of 1940. Why was this? Western leaders were certainly anti-Communist and though the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was secret, certainly there were signs suggesting that the two nations were working together.

I'm tired of my dad talking about how the EEEVIL UNIONS destroyed everything, so I would like to know what actually caused this.

When Japan annexed Taiwan and then Korea, how extensive were the differences between governance in these areas, compared to say similar places in the "home islands"? Did Taiwan and Korea have representation in the Japanese government?

Given what we know now about health & fitness and how to train our bodies, what would a typical soldier have looked like in those times? Would his physical capabilities been enough for what was demanded on a battlefield?

The swastika is a symbol prominently featured in buddhist imagery. So how/why did the Nazi party adopt this symbol? Does the name "Aryan" (name for an indian culture too I believe?) come from the same reasoning.

After all, for a lot of other symbols they took more inspiration from early germanic/norse culture.Which does make more sense, from a geography and culture standpoint, but they took a symbol from a culture halfway across the world. Why?