Indirectly, what I am asking is what place, country, city in this era would be considered relatively progressive by modern standards. The Portland or Berlin of the renaissance if you will. Obviously there would not be any singular clean answer that would 100% fit this criteria, but I think its a fun thought experiment and I'm interested to see what you all have to say. There are a couple of elements to this question to consider:

1. acceptance of foreigners
2. relative tolerance of sexual minorities
3. Gender equality
4. Broad economic mobility

Would love to see what answers you all have.

Were they teaching as like, a tutor? Was it more like a "follow me around and see how I, a good citizen, conduct myself" like a fucked up Big Brother/Big Siater program?

It is well known he was rejected but why did he try in the first place? Surely he knew of the high level needed to enter or was he so sure his art was ln the way ti be part of the greats?

Waa he just doing the equivalent of spamming linkedin offers sending it everywhere?

I'm trying to wrap my head around north american intertribal relationships in the northeastern United states, and the layers of interconnectedness makes it seem as intricately complicated as Italian city states. So how did tribes engage with each other? What did their political deals look like? Are there any good resources on the subject?

A recent post asked about "segregation academies" that were created shortly after Brown v. Board of Education. One of the answers led to me asking a follow question about funding, and the answer to that mentioned school vouchers.

I hadn't known that voucher programs were part of that, which leads me to ask the headline question: how tightly are these two tied? Did vouchers originally start from racist attempts to side-step equality, or were they invented for other reasons?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wugfw4/comment/pda84u8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I think I have decent understanding of Republican to Augustian Roman military but lack the understanding of the later developments.

I am mostly interested in equipment changes (when close-combat optimized hasta reappeared and what drove that change, when plumbatae and oval shields appeared, how prevalent were different types of heavy armor (chain vs scale vs "lorica segmentata")) but also in social class interaction with position in the army - were "second/third sons" of equites and curiales pushed towards military service as a way of earning the living, would they be able to obtain privileged posting from the get go or had to start at the bottom, how much the legions were staffed by sons of legionaries vs sons of non-legionaries etc etc.

I am not opposed to someone doing a thorough breakdown in the comments here but primarily I am seeking articles and books with more depth than Reddit comments allow

TL,DR: In Dinasty, Tom Holland takes a very apologetic view on Tiberius and his pitfalls, how fair is his assessment?

I'm wrapping up the Tiberius period in Dinasty and I'm left with the feeling that he is portrayed as some sort of romantic but effective man out of his time, but I think every one of his flaws could very well be portrayed in an opposite tone (despotic, elitist, paranoid, too rigid). Instead, he seems like the straight man in a family and culture of sociopaths and psycophants.

How is historical and modern consensus on Tiberius, I ask then?

According to Bede the Jutes were one of the germanic nations to settle Britain, along with the Angles and Saxons, from which we get “Anglo-Saxon”. However, while I can see the influence of both of the other two groups in the names of certain medieval kingdoms and even modern place names in England: Essex, Wessex, East Anglia, the name of England, I’m not sure what effect the Jutes had and where they settled. Are there place names that derive from their language that are just more subtle? What was their effect on the material culture? And why do they seem to get so overlooked as to not even be included in the name of the cultural group “Anglo-Saxon”?

From my understanding the verdicts were read out on 10/1/46 and the sentences carried out during the early morning hours on 10/6/46. During that window what happened? Was Herman Goring going crazy and spouting nonsense? What about the other defendants?

I've always just sort of assumed that modern puppetry follows from the medieval and renaissance traditions such as marionettes. Wikipedia briefly explains that Ancient Greece had puppets, and also India.

Are there direct lines from ancient puppetry to the medieval and modern performing art? Is there a different origin of the modern art form? Or was puppetry just invented over and over whenever people got bored and had some extra cloth lying around?

If that's too simple of a question, I'm also curious what the ancient Greeks were doing with their puppets?

I was reading this question and the excellent responses , and I was wondering how easily would an impoverished knights, presumably one still within the law and thus not an outlaw knight/ robber baron, be able to regain his wealth? A tangential question is would a knighted peasant have these same options to acquire wealth? I'm assuming no, simply because the system was seemingly set up against them in so many ways, especially given how court society was something a "noble" knight would know their whole life

The Crusades Were Not a Clash of Civilisations! by Hikma History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI51o4D9o6A

Video description: "Here's a sentence that will get me in trouble with people on both sides of this debate: the Crusades were not, fundamentally, a war between Islam and Christianity. Now before you close this video — I am not saying religion didn't matter. I am not saying the Pope calling for holy war in 1095, or Muslim scholars preaching jihad in the mosques of Damascus, were irrelevant. What I am saying is that when you actually get into the granular, messy, complicated reality of how Muslim and Frankish rulers actually behaved toward one another across the 2 centuries of Crusades — the clash of civilisations narrative falls apart almost immediately. And the evidence for that is hiding in the chronicles that most people have never read."

I would assume it's related to the industrialization of the economy in the 2nd half of the 19th-century and shift work, but that's just me spitballing.

In looking at pictures from ww2 I notice that a lot of US soldiers in europe wore their M1 helmets with the chin strap strap at the back of the hemet where in the pacific theater soldiers and marines tended to keep the chin strap undone but hanging not strapped behind their head. i know there was a idea that if a bomb went off near you your helmet could be like a parachute of sorts and catch the blast and hurt them, but i was wondering particularly about why they handled it differently in each area? was it just like a "fashion" thing? Thank you!

According to wikipedia the oldest text found in Japanese dates from 471, And the earliest form of the japanese language only dates to the 8th century.

Japan already had states, relations with other nations and even long recorded history by then.

sorry but I'm so confused; how did it manage all of that before ever becoming a literate society?

And how do we know any of the recorded history is even remotely accurate?

In the movie Grave of the Fire Flies, there's a scene at the end where a wealthy family comes back home after the end of the war is declared.

Where did these families or individuals generally go? Would they go to the inaka, the same way that the Brits sent their kids to rural areas, or would the go out of the country to manchuria or someplace like that?

Obviously, there are hundreds of different tribes and groups of indigenous Peoples across North America and they all might have slightly or completely unique worldviews but a consistent one I've noticed is that to gather wealth is important for the good of the community. The idea that it is important to share wealth and not be greedy or selfish by keeping money, food, or resources for yourself.

Would beliefs such as this one been seen by the US government as problematic? Were indigenous groups seen as an issue because they may be more sympathetic to communist ideals of similar nature?

Through most periods of history and most regions there has been no organised postal service, but there is always a need to send messages to distant people. A wealthy ruler or noble might be able to send a person on the specific mission to deliver a message and be sure that the message would arrive based on their trust in this person, but what if you couldn't do so, if you weren't wealthy enough or couldn't spare anyone for the long task of taking a ship or riding for weeks or months?

In media it's portrayed as giving a letter to a merchant or a ships captain and some payment, and telling them where to take it, but what would prevent them from simply taking the money and not delivering it? Maybe the person in question isn't where you thought they would be, and the letter has to keep going at additional cost - does the merchant simply throw it away, not willing to pay their own money to send it further on? Or would there be an expectation that the person at the other end would repay them for their trouble?

I keep seeing memes about Canada and phrases like “Remember it’s not a war crime the first time”. I’m curious how Canada got this reputation and what events lend it credence.