I get the idea of a family crypt, but I've read that the Ducal Crypt contains hearts and viscera while the bodies are buried elsewhere. What was the point and meaning of this ritual, and was it a common ritual in Europe among other royal families? Was this sort of burial common for lower class folks?

How were persian soldiers under the Achaemenid empire paid? Did they recieve regular payments or was it based on loot? And did different groups get paid differently? For example, were ethnic persians paid more than medians or lydians?

The famous British pudding - where does it come from? What is the dark, secret history of this most phallic-ally named desserts?

The people who own the land now are dirt poor and inherited the land.

Originally, it was probably left behind by the Alabamu tribe during the Trail Of Tears by my uneducated guess. Personally I have seen 20-30 arrowheads from this small area in the 90s. And I know that other people have been there to dig up arrowheads and such since at least the 50s probably long before as well.

I don't want the people who live there now to be ousted from their ancestors land or something however that land is also the land of other's ancestors too. It's familial land for both group and sacred for both too. I've always felt and thought of those natives who've never known their ancestor's land. And I've always felt guilty that people were digging up artifacts for personal collector's items.

What if anything can be done?

I am reading Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations for school and he made a passing reference to Christianity, which surprised me because I didn’t think that Christianity was widely known in the time of Marcus Aurelius.

So how widely known was Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire and do we know what the general public consensus was on it?

If there's no evidence of this - what is the meaning of claiming he and others were black men ?

I know of this happening with women pretending to be men so im pretty receptive to the idea , and to be honest want it to be true rather than some kind of metaphor

I've read Diogenes biography by Diogenes Laertius and I know that he's is a very old, and thus, very unrealible and anedoctal source. I know very little of Alexander of Macedonia, but I figure that we must have many more reliable sources about him, and from that perscetive, how plausible would the classical stories of both men meeting be? Would Alexander walk among commoners and talk to them? Besides have been tutored by Aristotle, would he interact with other philosophers in a way that could justify some interest in finding and taking to the Cynic?

So earlier today, my teacher was talking about McCarthy and how in a speech he said that the United States was in a "final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity." This as a result made me wonder, was McCarthyism helpful in red-bating? I would appreciate any help with this!

Did any factions resembling the Optimates or even the Populares persist in the early Roman Empire? Did the senate more just focus on quietly checking/supporting the emperor or were there still divisions in the senate that the emperor pitted against each other?

I was cleaning a work lab coat in the sink the other day (we use dodgy chemicals and I haven't arranged for a cleaning service to do it quite yet) and thought to myself, "I feel like a Victorian house wife right now"

I thought I'd tell my colleague about my thought but it occurred to me that since she was Polish she may not call the 1800s 'Victorian times'.

I was wondering what do they call the 1800s in other countries (specifically Poland I guess)? (Not including ex-British Empire countries who I assume also use Victorian times? )

My question could be extended to the whole of History in which I (a Brit) name after the monarch reigning at the time (eg Tudor, Georgian, Victorian).

Do countries with a history of monarchs ruling name them after their monarchs?

What about countries without Monarchs?

Back to the Victorian times, is the non-country-specific-historically-politically-correct term the "Industrial Revolution" ?- do they use this in other countries?

Thanks for you time.

I’ve been looking for a while about this and I still haven’t found a clear answer. On one hand I’ve heard that Nazi Germany was powerful, brang Germany out of the Depression, and almost conquered Europe. On the other I’ve heard it was actually horribly inefficient due to Hitler’s incompetence and extreme competition within the branches of government. Which is true, if any?

I am not sure if this is how history is portrayed or real history in play. Whether I encounter a story because older battles like WW1 or WW2, they are often depicted are incredibly large with hundreds or maybe thousands present and incredibly destructive like the trench of Western Europe in WW1, or the all in strategy of WW2 like aerial bombings or D-Day.

Then when depicting battles from the 50s onwards (unless you count the Vietnam war with Napalm bombings and underground tunnels), this is where we see a shift in how battles are played like espionage missions or small skirmishes in the Middle East.

How did this shift in military conflicts change as time progressed despite the advancement in military strategy and technology?

I recently learned of some Indian warriors who supposedly wielded swords in combat weighing over thirty pounds(Their names were Baba Deep Singh and Maharana Pratap). Which sounds AWESOME. Unfortunately I'm having some trouble finding unbiased sources on these. Anyone know if this was real?

Say you have a text from 1819 (not that acient I know) that narrates the purchase of a ship in Cuba for 5.500 pesos, how would one know what was the real economic value of that? Is it possible to calculate how much it would be worth in modern-day money, like saying 5.500 pesos from 1919 = X euros from 2020?

​

If there is no way to calculate the modern equivalent, how do we establish how much one coin would have been worth?

As far as I can tell, for some of these men are confirmed real, and are documented by the other people’s they raided/ruled over. Is there a reason to doubt the existence of such legendary figures beyond a popular trend of dismissing anything from legends? Similar to the beliefs that Troy and the Trojan war never existed or happened among 19th century historians?

Note: I asked on another subreddit and they directed me here, so if this isn’t the appropriate place I apologize.

In particular I’m looking for books that focus only on either the KMS Bismarck or the USS Missouri. I’ve found some but the reviews state that the information inside the books often contradict other parts of the book. If you have any recommendations I would appreciate it, thanks.

Listened to a history channel podcast and am really interested in the 1876 election. Any recommendations?

Elvis Presley is often described as having "stolen" rock and roll from black people, "inventing" (in the eyes of the public) a style of music that had already been around for years. No doubt the people making money off him were happy not to contradict (and to actively encourage) the perception of Elvis as a pioneer, but did the man himself ever push back against that narrative? Are there interviews or other statements from the height of his fame where he encourages people to check out the black musicians who inspired him? Or was he happy to ride their coattails without acknowledging them?