To my untrained eye, the bow seems more or less the same basic shape and construction since... well forever. I assume there must have been some big and important changes in material, especially in strings or fletching, but was there any big evolution during the Middle Ages? Did the idea of composite bows spread very far?

Let’s say I’m a certain Senatorial Publius running for Consul in the years after the Sullan reforms, which (among other things if I’m remembering the time and what was intended to happen) were supposed to prevent people from accruing consecutive consulships/posts by placing a requirement for a certain number of years to wait before even trying for that post again.

I win my office and I’ll be Consul from January 1st 75 BC, until December 31st 75 BC. In this case, would I be able to achieve the consulship of January 1st-December 31st of 65 BC, or would I only be able to serve in the 64 BC consulship? Was that clock/restriction to have started at the moment the new year starts on the 1st of January 74 BC, thereby giving me 11 years between the start of the 75 BC consulship and the start 64 BC consulship? Or 10 years including the year of my first consulship in 75 BC?

I know that a lot of Roman law could be vague, but I’m very curious as to how this was interpreted by them. By Neptune’s beard I want my next consulship to be earlier damn it!

Me and my friend started to discuss this question and none of us are sure. We know that the Ostrogoths from Sweden migrated trough Europe and may be the origin of the modern word “goth”. Can someone confirm this?

The contributions were fascinating, of course, but nevertheless it seems biased to me that the sub's most important rule was totally ignored just because (I assume) a large proportion of the mods had strong feelings about the event.

As a non American I think it's pretty safe to say nothing that could ever happen here would get a pinned hot take explicitly addressing the issue on the same day.

Watched the Netflix show, and mostly interested in the history of the bank and its structure more than the family. Any recommendations? Thank you!

This question might be different based on different city-states, but I'm interested in any pertinent information.

I've read and enjoyed several books about the history of fascism in Germany (Rise and Fall, the Third Reich trilogy by Richard Evans, The German Dictatorship etc). But I haven't come across anything similar dealing with Italian fascism. To clarify, I'm primarily interested in the ideology of fascism, how fascists gained state power, and what actual day to day life was like for people in fascist Italy and occupied territories and less interested in military centered history. I have like a Wikipedia/high school history level of education on the subject so while I'm not opposed to reading academic texts I'd also appreciate recommendations for like semi learned books on the subjects. (This post was originally going to be titled "is there an equivalent to the Third Reich Trilogy for fascist Italy?"

How were troops raised? Was it a militia or were they professional soldiers? Did they bring their own equipment?

Seems like we should be taking some notes right about now.

When I say "Indirectly" I mean without the use of some sort of document that points to an old census that was done by the time to count the population. What I mean, is what lines of thought and evidences can be used to estimate populations from natives from the Americas, or from barbaric populations by the times of Rome, etc, and how safe are specialists are that a certain number might be close to the real one.

Heard this on the lecture series on The Great Courses. The implication was that there was a rule for the rich and a rule for the poor but not gradations for different types of rich. (I assume this is a pretty sweeping simplification).

The lecturer suggested the restriction on the rich (clothes but also things like sizes of weddings and funerals) was to avoid provoking the poor but I wondered if it might be more directed to avoid a family becoming preeminent, or perhaps (as with anticompetitive guild practices) to avoid everyone having to throw money at a status race.

I was reading about Poundmaker and in 1885 his people were attacked at their camp by Cut Knife Hill by over 300 Canadian troops. The wiki page describes "six hours of inconclusive skirmishing" and the Canadians retreated. The Cree didn't pursue them, presumably because they weren't looking to fight anyways.

What I'm not sure about is how big Poundmakers band was, or how they fought. It certainly seems as though they won the battle, by way of holding off the enemy until they withdrew.

I've read quite a lot about myths and history, but for some reason I've neglected my own heritage, namely the 'Celtic' sphere. Something I'm finding incredibly strange is the complete lack of reference to Scotland in books about Celtic myth. More specific than this is the idea that Welsh and Irish medieval texts are the only source for understanding Iron Age Celtic beliefs and stories from the past generally. This doesn't make sense. Despite all I've read, I can't find a single answer. It's one of those issues that's so large that it really is frustrating me. This is the problem:

Scotland was/is a Celtic nation. It was comprised of Gaels (Scots and Irish) as well as Picts and Britons (both of these latter are Brittonic speakers, but they're still Celts of course). Yet despite reading several books on the topic of Celtic myth and general British history, I haven't actually found a single stated reason why the only texts ever written are from Wales and Ireland. For example, in one book all about the history of Scotland, the author continually states the Welsh preserved everything related to The Old North (Goddodin--literally Edinburgh and environs) but no answer is ever given as to why it's Wales alone that did this.

I'll be honest, it's kind of insulting, but more than that it's frustrating as I feel like there's a huge gap in my knowledge which should be easy to fill. I'm reading a book called The Celtic Myths (a very general title) and it's entirely based on Wales and Ireland, as if Scotland doesn't exist. It appears to specifically avoid Scotland.

Why is there no Scottish version of the Otherworld, Lugh, Morrigan, Cu chulainn, etc.? I would have thought that Scotland shared deities and heroes with Ireland since Scotland was intimately linked with Ireland (Dal Riata). Obviously Scotland has folklore, but nothing like legend or myth written down as in the texts cited below. Apparently the poem Y Goddodin was actually written around Alt Clut... But there's still only Welsh and Irish mythology. When people speak of The Mabinogion it's considered Welsh heritage.

Why is there no Scottish version of The Mabinogion or the Táin Bó Cúailnge? I genuinely can't figure out why there's no primary and important text for Scotland's Celtic heritage. I haven't read it yet, but I know the The Old North and other Brittonic elements are mentioned in The Mabinogion, but what about Gaelic Scots or Pictish elements? I refuse to believe there's no overarching, important Pictish or Scottish (as in the specific Scots group) literature.

I'll put it as simply as I can. I'm constantly reading that Wales and Ireland preserved everything, but no one seems to be saying why only they preserved it. Why is Celtic = Irish and Welsh?

Sorry if my tone comes across as agitated, but it really is a bit annoying to not know why my country has no part in any Celtic literature when it clearly should. Let me repeat, this isn't a nationalistic rant. This is just someone wanting to understand history and literature.

Edit: To make my point even clearer, even if you search for Scottish mythology you'll find only references to Irish mythology in which Scotland plays a part but it still falls under the umbrella of Irish mythology. Even the Fianna, apparently with strong links to Scotland, is still mostly about Ireland and Irish people with Irish names. I'm struggling to find a single Scottish work of legend on the level of famous primary sources. It's not even the feeling of being excluded, I'm wanting to understand why Medieval Scottish people didn't write anything...

I know this question can come across as stupid, but I am wondering about it. What are the properties of Gold that make it so valuable? It is obvious to me, that nowadays the value of something can be its exchange value - as is the case with money. Assuming that gold has not always been the primary means of exchange, I assume that there is some reason for it to become valuable. So how did that happen? Is it just it's "reflections"? It's ability to be worked easily? Are there any serious theories about it? I don't want to pose it as a philosophical question about 'value-theory' but rather, as a historical question regarding the evidence for the beginning of the use as gold as means of exchange.

Were there any other metals that were more valuable? If yes, for which reasons, and why did they eventually become less important?

If there are any other interesting narratives about this, I'm also curious. Right now I'm working on a small presentation that also involves the gold-standard, so if there are any other historical turning points regarding the appreciation of gold/metals, I would be curious to know about it.

Hope someone can help me.

I've been watching The Last Kingdom and Vikings, and they've made me wonder about this era. Anglo-Saxons quickly became the dominant actors in England, but was there ever pushback or a united cause by the native Britons to create a united kingdom? I know this is a loaded question... or series of questions... but I appreciate anything anyone has to say and any further suggested readings on the topics! Thanks again!

I'm doing research into how we know the death toll of approximately 6 million, but I'm curious as to when that number was first reached. Did the estimate fluctuate at first, like with the Holodomor, or has it always been pretty consistent?

What was the reason that made humans prefer eating cooked meat over raw meat?

I've watched several fictional TV series that take place anywhere from the 1920s to the 1960s. In most cases, all of the working men have a mistress, and some have more than one. Was this actually the case? Was it really THAT common for men to have extramarital affairs? I realize this may be hard to estimate, and obviously TV shows like to make things dramatic, but it seems to be a trend specifically in shows within these timeframes.