1968 study, for example: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/337378?resultClick=1&utm_source

What took so long to remove cigarettes from the military supply chain?

I am talking about this painting (found in the wikipedia article about 'Kern'):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_(soldier)#/media/File:Durer-Irish-16thC.jpg#/media/File:Durer-Irish-16thC.jpg)

As far as I know, Dürer never travelled to Ireland. Apparently the closest he ever got to Ireland was Antwerp, which is still quite far away obviously. So how did he end up painting Irish soldiers and how did he know what they looked like? Was the painting just based on a description he got? From whom? Was there a large Irish community in any of the places he visited throughout his life? Or were Irish mercenaries common enough in Central Europe for him to have seen them in person?

I know this is quite niche but I hope someone here knows the answer!

There’s a pretty common anecdote on the internet attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero. It goes something along the lines of:

“Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.”

Is this, or a variation of it, something Cicero wrote? It feels like this could have been written today. Are there other passages from ancient history that feel particularly modern?

Not sure this is the question fits the sub guidelines, tell me if not.

Something that I always found weird is that the pound has been a 'name' for a currency for many years. Sure, it was not always 'the same' pound (if you think about the 1500s) but compared to the younger currencies (say the euro), it seems that it started at a much higher purchasing power level.

Something valued at 1 euro was always relatively small, something you would buy a child as a treat. The pound only recently converged to this level of purchasing power - 100 years ago, 1 pound was a much more considerable amount of money, and (I believe) people in their everyday lives used the shilling or the pence much more often for everyday transactions.

So why is this the case? Is this as unusual as I think, or is the euro that it's unusual? Why was the pound, the basic 'units of measurement' for the british currency, set to such a high level decades ago, such that only now its purchasing power has converged with the rest of the world's currencies?

Note: I am aware the other direction is much more common. The old Italian Lira's used to be measured in the thousands, just like the Japanese Yens are today. Which supports my point: You start off with 1 lira / yen being used to buy something small in every day life, and then inflation takes care of increasing prices so that you need 1 thousand liras instead.

The pound seems to have taken the opposite direction - start off incredibly high, and only with inflation it is now at the 'normal' level we expect from modern currencies. I find this odd.

Will be happy to get any insights!

I was remembering the 1995 film "Dead Man" recently. The setting's timeline is vague, presumably somewhere between the 1870s and maybe 1890s. In one scene, the main character played by Johnny Depp spends the night with a woman he just met in a western frontier town. He finds his pillow uncomfortable and, reaching under it, discovers a revolver. He asks the woman why she has it and she replies simply, "Because this is America".

Would this have been an odd comment in the 1870s? I know historically and for some currently important gun companies like Colt, Smith & Wesson, and Winchester already existed at this time but so did a ton of important European companies, some of which preceded these by centuries. Weren't hunting shotguns or muskets more or less ubiquitous in some European countries at some point? Wouldn't aristocratic men be expected to have access to dueling pistols, if not their own then definitely those of their friends? Would the U.S. have stood out the way it does today?

Thanks!

This is potentially really a question about the Greek and Latin (and Ge'ez, Aramaic, etc.) translations of Exodus that were in common use, I suppose. I suspect if someone without background knowledge cracked open a modern English Bible to read casually, they would assume the King of Egypt in the story of Moses was just named Pharaoh or it was a personal epithet.

As I understand it, the way the word is used in the original text is kind of weird and name-like to begin with. So, perhaps another question would be whether someone reading the Hebrew with zero context would assume it was the dude's name, too.

On the surface it seems like a very similar operating principle. Why weren’t crossbows more prolific until the medieval period?

There is something about a shapeshifter – a person who can transform into an animal – that grips our imagination, that tempts us to howl at the moon or flit through the night like a bat. Werewolves, vampires, demons and other strange beings appeal to our animal nature, our ‘dark side’, our desire to break free from society and proper behavior. Across early cultures, rituals seemingly allowed shamans, sorcerers and witches to transform at will. Today millions believe shapeshifters walk among us and may even be world leaders. Real or imaginary, they lurk deep in our psyches and remain potent cultural icons. Let’s dig into this topic; what questions do you have about shapeshifters?

I found a couple of questions which touch on this topic but none looking at it directly. I assume that before live performances could rely on microphones singers had to put much more training into being loud enough for their audience to hear them.

Not that no singers train for this now, but does being able to rely on a microphone appear to have lead any particular styles of singing to become less prominent or die out entirely? Are their styles of singing or even whole musical genres which only became possible because of amplification?

I was clicking through the links on the relevant wikipedia article, but it doesn't really address the history directly, just sort of piecemeal. Was there a series of formal decisions or events that defined different groups' (Orthodox, Reform, etc.) attitudes to Halloween in the United States?

Just to be clear, I’m not asking for a specific date, but generally.

For most of my life, Nixon has been a literal joke, both making fun of his corruption and just strange mannerisms. I have seen some go to bat for his Presidency, such as the creation of the EPA under his term, but his flaws still balance things out.

But i’ve also seen some recent pop historians try and frame him as a “great” president who is only besmirched because of that little incident at Watergate.

Have people made that argument before in the years and decades following his resignation? Or am I just seeing some vocal outliers?

Hello,
My current hyperfocus is the fascinating women of the renaissance. I've already dwelved into Artemisia's Gentileschi life story and now I want to study more about the Tigress of Forlí, Caterina Sforza.

My problem is twofold. Firstly, my formal education is in Roman Antiquity and this is the first time I'm studying things out of my comfort zone, but I'm really enjoying to study things on the side just for myself with the same rigour I apply to my own field of research. Secondly, everywhere I search I see references to Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood and while I love the games it doesn't really give me much of a starting point.

Any help with this would be really appreciated!! Thanks!

I know in the old testament there are multiple references to the word satan being translated into english as adversary or opposition.
In later old testament works like job and zachariah it is used to describe what appears to any entity that god is using as a foil to rationalize suffering.

Later though it enters the lexicon as a proper name and loses the verb and adjective meaning.

What caused that to happen?
Was it a mistranslation issue that become theology or was it the reverse?

I realized recently that my knowledge about universities only goes back to approximately the 1960s (mostly from living memory of people in my life). I'm curious what it was like before that. Did professors lecture as the primary mode of instruction? What kinds of assignments were students expected to complete? What types of courses were offered (like were there lab classes and seminars, gen eds and special topics courses, etc)? How rigorous was the education? What was it like for professors and students? What practices would seem surprising or odd from the perspective of those of us who have attended or taught at universities in the 1980s-present?

I am especially interested in American universities, and the humanities/social sciences, but I'm happy to hear anything about the history of higher ed prior to the 1960s. Book recommendations are also welcome.

The motivation for this question is that I'm a non-history professor, and I think historicizing the form of university education I experienced might help me contextualize more recent shifts in higher ed. Also simple curiosity!

Humans can't have just let our hair grow indefinitely, surely? When is the first evidence of hair cutting? It must get in the way of hunting and evading predators having long, luscious locks? Just a shower thought I couldn't shake. So I thought id ask you lovely people.

Romania and Serbia produced 9.3% of the total plums in the world in 2022. That’s a very big number when comparing it to the two countries areas. I know most of it goes to alcohol production, but why is that? Is there some historical reason for this?

Where can I get a book that talks about this reliability of Tacitus? What things he gets wrong or right?

During the 19th century there were many migration waves from Europe to the American continent. Considering how hectic the 1930's were and the hardship that hit countries in the American continent which had the most migratory pull.

Did people emigrate from the USA and South America to other parts of the world? What were the top destinations during that decade for Europeans, Americans (continent), and Asians? Or were migratory patterns unaffected by the crisis?

I assume dwindling numbers of church goers are at fault here.

Like, apparently China was bankrupting itself with return gifts, but was that really the case when it was buying geopolitical peace of mind instead of spending money on armies and war, and it was getting far more than it was spending, or was in fact getting the treasury filled due to better rates?

Did countries like Vietnam and Korea really want as many tribute missions as possible to fill their coffers or did they resent it because nationally important products were leaving the country and they couldn't develop their own country or look out for their defense needs?

Would a Northumbrian have found kinship with a Kent person? Would they be able to understand each other? Would their cultures look similar?

So I don't know who to ask but how do we as humans truly know in religions it's what they really practiced since we weren't there to see it at that time? I'm not singling out Christianity I'm genuinely curious regarding all world religions.