I’m reading The White Company by Arthur Conan Doyle, and it tells of the English going to fight in France and Spain in 1366. The main character is not a noble, but he was made a squire to a famous knight. Their little army has 80 archers and 20 men-at-arms. I doubt that all these men-at-arms are nobles, but would they have squired for someone at some point? How did they gain the money to buy plate armour and learn how to fight if not raised in the way the nobility were?

I honestly forget where, but I was once told that if the USA had invaded Japan, the Soviet Union would have as well, resulting in a similar situation as in Berlin. What do you think, would this have happened?

I know the Arabs did try to siege Constantinople, but after that they seemed to settle just on raiding the Anatolian countryside instead of taking it like other parts of the Byzantine Empire. Why was this? The Arab forces seemed to always have larger armies than were present in Anatolia, and the empire’s instability did make it weak.

I am hoping someone can give me some general (or specific) background on the Yule holiday. Basically my understanding is that this was a medieval or ancient Pagan holiday celebrating the winter solstice that was eventually absorbed into the Christian Christmas holiday. Some questions I have are:

How old is/when was this holiday celebrated?

Which societies celebrated it and what type of people within those societies?

What were some of the customs and traditions associated with Yule?

When/how/by whom was it adapted into modern Christmas?

I know it’s a very weird question but I’m genuinely interested to see if anyone has an answer. I’m inclined to speculate that the answer is “no.” If that is the case, I further wonder if that’s a result of social conditioning or more environmental factors? In the former, I imagined it would be considered impolite/possibly sinful. As for the second, I’m alluding more to the idea that life in general would’ve been harder so people naturally would’ve been more serious. As a random example, if you were a young Genghis Khan living in Mongolia where your survival basically depended on enduring the harsh elements and hunting for food, I’d imagine you wouldn’t really have a sense of humor throughout life.

So there’s a lot of talk about the Library of Alexandria on Reddit. I’ve read multiple conflicting reports of what caused its destruction, with my favorites being that it was never destroyed, but just fell into disuse. So my question is, where did this myth about the Library of Alexandria come from? By that I mean the myth that it held every book ever, and was even destroyed to begin with come from?

& also, were the Yuan & Qing dynasties simply ruling families of a wider "Chinese Empire" or of a new state emerging of the Mongol Empire for the first one (like the Ilkhanate) & a continuation of the Jin state for the second? If yes, why does China is then generally seen as a monolithic state when this would basically mean that it was a succession of states simply on the same geographical region?

I am looking to learn more about the period after the Civil War until the Civil Rights Movement. Mostly I want to learn more about how black people were discriminated against and the kinds of laws and policies that were passed such as voting laws and red lining. Also how our society developed systemic racism and it’s effects today. Any suggestions for good books and authors would be appreciated.

"Europeans did not have contact with Singapore until the 19th century, so that plot line in Pirates 3, while inspired by history, is an anachronism."

I just saw this posted on a recent AmA by a PhD historian.

Modern Singapore was founded by the british in 1819, but the area was well know by the Portuguese since 1511, and later by the Dutch.

So what's the basis to say Europeans did not have contact with Singapore before the 19th century?

I was playing Assassins Creed Odyssey and one guy was complaining that the depiction of homosexuality wasnt accurate. The Ancient Greeks viewed homosexual relationsships more as a way to show power rather than having a loving partner and encouraged older men sleeping with prepubescent boys, is that correct? But wasnt it alright to sleep with a man of a lower rang for example a slave?

Later I read that homosexuality was a taboo for the plebs in amcient rome, but alright for emporers as long as they are the "dominating" part. Is that also correct?

So does that mean our depiction of the gay antiquity is false or misleading? I want to check my facts before spreading false information. Thanks in advance :)

(Second attempt at asking the question)

I will start this question with a statement that I do not believe to be controversial: that being anti-Catholicism is no longer present in modern American society. Now, obviously I cannot speak for the experience of every American, but just to use a prominent example, President-Elect Joe Biden and Vice President Michael Pence is a Catholic. More importantly to my point, his religious beliefs has never really been an issue for him. No one has ever questioned if Biden’s “true loyalty” is to the Pope, or implied that he can't be President because “a papist can never be a true American”. These are very “top-heavy” examples, but I believe they help back my point that, in contrast to so many other prejudices, anti-Catholicism in the United States is pretty much a thing of the past.

To me though, this raises a question of how “truly” anti-Catholic America was to begin with. Many history books I’ve read depict anti-Catholicism in the US as basically a bi-product of anti-immigrant prejudice. WASP Americans didn’t like the Catholic Church mainly because WASP Americans didn’t like the Irish, or the Italians, or the Germans, or the Latinos etc.

But is this conception accurate? Was there more to the prejudice than simply people being against foriegners? To use another presidential example (though it’s a bit outside the scope of “early US”), I’ve seen some people attribute Democratic candidate Al Smith losing many southern states in the 1928 presidential election (back when it was still the “solid south” for the Democratic Party) as being because of anti-Catholic sentiments in those states.

So how strong was anti-Catholicism in the US society generally? Was it just another facet of anti-immigrant bigotries, or was it a distinct and “sincere” prejudice that was embraced by most (white) Americans? Would Americans have looked down on something just for being Catholic? To give one final example, fictional president Josiah Bartlett from the tv show West Wing is a member of a long line of prominent Americans (“the right sort of family” you could say). But he was also baptized a Catholic thanks to his mother. So would Josiah Bartlett, a "White Anglo-Saxon Catholic", have ever faced any sort of discrimination for that at any point in US history?

This is the original text: "Si pater filium ter venum duit, filius a patre liber esto".

I understand that the pater familias could decide to kill every member of the family if he wanted, so it makes sense that he could also sell them but how could he do it thrice? Would the son come back? Did he sell him for a limited amount of time? Why was this law written and why was the limit set on three times?

I tried to ask this to my teacher but she was very elusive and didn't answer me.

Thank you!

Edit: spelling

This seems like an incredibly stressful thing to have to do before you eat any food that's prepared by "your" royal kitchen. But, I suppose royal persons have many many many more stressful things to worry about.

I've being a bit vague with "royal persons" as to hopefully gain answers from all across the globe and timeline. I'm sure this idea permeates through humans as it's kind of a principle thought: "My enemies may want me dead"

Furthermore, how exactly was this made practical? Are there poisons that can take hours and hours to have affect? If so, was this accounted for?

Or was this more of a special circumstance type-thing where royals vising other royals would have their respective servants try the food out of distrust of the opposing royal? (wordy sentence) Where, otherwise if they were at home, they wouldn't bother with taste testing when they trust the full royal kitchen staff?

OR! Is this just a bunch of hubub?

I'm happy to clarify on any questions, and am interested in answers from wherever.

In ancient times, Egypt's agricultural productivity made it one of the strongest powers in the near east. Even after it's power as an independent state faded, it's grain made it an extremely wealthy lrovince for whoever owned. The city of Rome was dependent on it and the rest of Africa for it's survival. But during the Middle Ages, this aspect seems to fade and much of it's wealth comes for trade. Why did this happen?

I've learned that attackers used to build siege weapons like trebuchets when laying siege to castles. I am curious as to why castles, especially considering they usually had the high ground, didn't just have their own trebuchets waiting inside their castles? They could have daily target practise, too, to make them super effective and train the siege crews.

With siege weapons basically cancelling each other out, would't castles be basically imprenable beyond a certain size?