I was reading Íslendingabók about the conversion of Iceland to Christianity and was wondering about something I read. At one point, the lawspeaker declares that people can still sacrifice to the pagan gods in secret but will be condemned for lesser outlawry if witnesses are produced. The footnotes explain what lesser outlawry means, but I'm wondering if this could ever be applied to women? Women seem to have no official presence at the Althing (even though there are stories in other sagas about women meeting men when everyone's gathered at the Althing, so I assume they sometimes came). Did this mean they were also exempt from legal penalties like outlawry? Thanks!

The popular Spark Notes summary of the Renaissance is that the learned elites of Western Europe in the 15th century started to "rediscover" the works of classical (mostly Greco-Roman) authors, artists, poets, philosophers etc.

But I've always wondered: was knowledge of these works ever meaningfully "lost" to begin with? After all, it's not like someone in the 15th century suddenly unearthed a large treasure trove of ancient manuscripts, right? To my knowledge, these works have been "rediscovered" mainly in monasteries and private collections, where they'd have to be preserved and copied for centuries. So is it really accurate to say that they were "rediscovered" if scholars have been aware of them all along? Wouldn't it be better to say that they were reappraised after falling out of fashion for some time, presumably due to being eclipsed by internal Christian controversies and developments?

To sum up, my question would be: to what extent and how was the heritage of the Greco-Roman world truly "rediscovered" during the Renaissance, and how exactly was it "lost" to begin with?

(Note: I am mostly interested in the history of literary and intellectual works from antiquity, so if this aspect of the Renaissance has a different history from the more artistic side- like sculpture and painting- then I would like to focus on this, please).

Thanks!

What do we know? Do we know of found or potential artifacts from Doggerland that can tell us about what happened there?

In watching a few of the Anne Boleyn movies, they often depict her wearing a white cap before the execution, is there any reason for this besides keeping her hair off her neck? I’ve seen others in white caps before too, typically women, and wondered if there was a reason.

I'm aware of the significant powerhouses of the sea, but how viable is it for a small village to construct their own vessel to help generate income? Is this the sort of thing one does alongside their daily fish? Is it a communal activity during the winter? Are they analogous to cars of the modern day or do they represent a significant portion of someone's wealth?

We saw in the same period other European states suppressing languages e.g Occitanian, what made Russia different?

How fine were other metal tools and weapons in old/non-modern Japan? Because smiths always forged japanese swords to look smooth and perfect, but how good did they forge other tools and weapons?

My question is about the United States. General lore is that there was a 'before and after', where before the GFC big corporates and law firms would mass hire grads with a liberal arts and sciences education, pay them decently, and put them on a clear career track. How true is that picture?

For example the Mahabarata, Old Testament, illiad, Aenid, various Chinese myths etc.

I'm not asking if the full myth was corroborated because that's unlikely and impossible, but at least maybe some historical figures and events were corroborated ? I think some Old Testament figures have been corroborated correct?

Thanks.

Sure, some people in Germany disagreed but went along with the Nazi stuff because they didn’t want to be killed, but, to my (very limited) understanding, MOST of Germany was very much indoctrinated into Nazi ideology. How did the allied powers go about un-nazifying the populace? The term “reedecuation camp” has a VERY negative connotation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the actual concept is bad, especially when the people are being reeducated about nazism. Were there reeducation camps?

Did Hans the riflemen and Karl the machine gun man believe fully in hitler's vision?

If so why? Was it simply because New York had such a high population density, too much class divede (in the Wild West by contrast did essentially all Whites have their own property which was obviously not the case in 19th century New York) and immigrants or something else?

When Finland's relationship to Nazi Germany and the Axis gets mentioned, the word "alliance" will rarely be given. And while it is true that Finland never officially joined the Axis, this seemed to be mostly de jure, as de facto they cooperated with Axis command, allowed German troops to enter their land, and were heavily dependent on German supplies. Yet, very often I will see it stressed that Finland "was a co-beligerent, not an ally of Germany."

Meanwhile, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact often gets called "The Nazi-Soviet alliance". While I don't disagree with this classification, I wonder why Finland doesn't seem to receive the same label of "Allied with the Nazis", but rather gets its co-beligerent status stressed. Is this somehow grounded in Cold War politics? Or was there maybe some Finnish foreign policy campaign to get this view out into the world?

While determining the value of the merchant ship can be accomplished via an auction, it seems unlikely that there would be competitive bidding for captured ships of the line. Yes captains and crew who managed to capture these large warships would have expected prize money. How was the prize value determined in the absence of an auction?

They stormed the French Legation
They attacked with shot and shell
And they came in blood red blouses
Screaming shashow as they fell

I had assumed the Boxers were mostly an uprising of civilians and defecting soldiers that would not have access to heavy military equipment (hence why the International Legations were able to hold out for so long against overwhelming numerical superiority). Is the song embellishing things for dramatic effect, or would the Boxes have actually fielded artillery with explosive shells?

What happened to the poor people in ancient societies if they could not feed themselves?
Was there anything like a welfare system back a few thousand years ago that we know of, or was selling themselves into indentured slavery or their family members the only route?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/200ru9/why_do_we_study_history_i_am_at_a_loss/

From this post, certainly I agree that there is utility in studying history. We learn how to work from cause and effect, and make inferences about the future from how the past led to today. Furthermore, trends in human behaviour can give information on the human psyche. However, I was wondering why does this apply to studying all of history? If you have a case-study of the life of 20 soldiers in some war, why should you need a 100 more (beyond pedagogy)? If we know how medicine evolved from 1000CE to today, what utility is there in learning how medicine evolved before then?

Don't get me wrong. I certainly don't think that utility is the be-all and end-all metric to why we should do something. I'm just wondering what the reason is, whether it be philosophically aesthetic reason, utilitarian etc

I am looking for research recommendations on ‘life’ inside Neuengamme Nazi concentration camp - difficult because of the clearing of the camp and destruction of records in 1945. This is for a commissioned project, which of course needs to honour those who suffered there by a commitment to facts and a sensitivity to experience.

I am almost done with Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem: The Banality of Evil, which offers a very good (read: horrific) insight into SS bureaucracy and logistics. Incredibly useful would be further information along this angle pertaining to Neuengamme - including the brick factory and “extermination through labour” policy. Even more importantly, though, is the day to day experiences of those incarcerated there.

It is terribly humbling to be asked to come anywhere near this level of tragedy as a writer, and no less terrifying. Experts on this subject will understand, I am sure. Any and all input would be greatly appreciated.

As of 2024, Russia is around 62% Christian, 21% Atheist, 10% Muslim and 1.4% belonging to other religions (the rest were undeclared), Whereas ethnically it's only around 70% Russian. (Source: Wikipedia)

And to my knowledge it's not like Russia was historically any more tolerant towards minorities than most Western European states. Indeed, Russian history is also no stranger to mass ethnic cleansing, as the Circassians and Crimean Tatars can attest.

And yet, you still have places like Dagestan, Tatarstan, Chechnya and many other regions in Russia where Russians and Orthodox Christians are themselves a minority. This is in stark contrast to say Western Europe, which has historically basically been 100% Christian and isn't nearly as ethnically diverse.

So why is this the case? Were the minorities in Russia somehow more resistant to persecution, or did the Russian State itself functioned in way that it couldn't completely assimilate ethnic or religious minorities?

So I am buying a homemade remake of a 1841 mountain howitzer but the carriage is not at all correct. Does anyone know of a book or resource I can find to make an accurate carriage as well as any accessories it would have had ?

I am also interested in any related historical events.

I am aware that in England, it was common for upper class men to draft a marriage settlement when their daugther was to get married. But let's say there is a landed gentlemen (or a titled upper class man) who dies and all his property (and title - I know it's very rare for women to be a peer in her own right) goes to his surviving unmarried (adult) daugther. And this daugther has absolutely no male relatives in her life. Could you still enter into a marriage settlement? We often hear of unmarried daugthers from well off backgrounds going to Gretna Green to marry and how in such marriages, since there were no marriage settlement contract, the husband gains full ownership of movable property that the woman has. However, certainly, there were unmarried women who were thoughtful enough to want to secure their financial assets right?

I’m studying the Holocaust for my degree and have read a great deal about the Holocaust, about the conditions in occupied territory including Vichy France and the occupation, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Poland, but I don’t know much if anything about daily life within the German core besides having seen Ich Klage an and Ohm Kruger.

I’m particularly curious what amount of information control and day to day repression a German could expect, what the standards of living were, etc. I don’t need a summary, I’m here to learn and make my own analyses rather than regurgitate what (admittedly more educated) people have to say, but even just knowing what books, authors, etc. to start with would be a godsend.

How did local colonial governments react to the news of HIV within the territories they administered. And did they follow the same policy when prior diseases happened within their territories?

Colonial Governments can include South Africa until 1991.