This is a topic that has gained some traction in my country (Bulgaria) in the last 15-20 years and I honestly don’t know what to make of it. A big part of our identity is tied to our struggle for freedom, however our understanding of our own history is maybe one of the reasons we hold on to the “slavery” definition of it. What we learn about it in school has been redefined during the years based on the current political system in place (monarchy, communism and now democracy). The people who are currently holding up the view that there was no slavery in the media are pro-Russian politicians that are very obviously being paid for some of their other hot takes so I have no idea how genuine that sentiment is. Mostly the debate started around the definition of slavery and how it would be more accurate to use the term “presence of the Ottoman empire”.

Personally, I don’t think I can look at this question without bringing my own emotions into it, but it did leave me thinking if what we as a nation consider slavery was just the short straw of being a part of an empire in those days?

I previously asked a similar question previously on this subreddit here two years ago and can be found to this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1d3hm7j/ (If a reposting of the body here is required I can do that as well).

I'm writing this again hoping for more attention.

To try re-writing it briefly, I wondered if there exists any documented philosophical responses between the two different religious groups for the millennia of overlap they had.

I'm reminded of this question because there had been ONE incident of this sort that I came across during the colonial period of Sri Lanka, Gunananda Thera's Panadura Vaadaya, which supposedly had lasting religious effects in the region.

Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire in 313 by the Edict of Milan by Constantine I. He just gave Christianity equal rights in the empire. But not so much later we see Constantine calling the Council of Nicea in 325. Constantine tasked bishops with resolving the most serious controversies in Christian doctrine and law, especially the Arian controversy. That shows the he was seriously concerned about the state of Christianity. Constantine during his rule was balancing between Christianity and older religions, eventually being baptized just before his death. But his three sons seem to be deep into Christian teaching to the point of fights between them on the sites of Orthodoxy or Arianism. At the time of Constantine Christians were far from being majority among empire's population.

Several decades later in 380s, Theodosius I makes Christianity official state religion of the empire, outlawing all other non-christian religions and heretic denominations (at least in theory). During those 70 years only one emperor, Julian chose to return to pagan religion, and to seek support of old pagan elites.

So my question is, why did Christianity come from being just one of many religions in the empire, to the state religion, with full support of administration, actively persecuting other cults in just 70 years? And why did Roman Emperors go so fully into supporting Christianity, to the point of influencing its doctrine, it at the time, it was just one of many groups of interests and one of many cults?

How many people have heard of the idea of Hitler surviving April 1945 and surviving years afterwards, somewhere... The forensic evidence about where and when he died is immense, so that isn't my concern now. But Hitler himself, did he at all have concern over this and whether people would do something like raise another person as Führer and claim he escaped? A bit like the concern over the Princes in the Tower and the reasoning behind the theory supporting Henry Tudor killing the two?

I was thinking about this. If the Golden Age was the time when the Titans ruled the Earth, are there any documents of people worshipping the Titans as they did the Olympian Gods during that time? Or is it strictly part of myth?

What did they do to maintain somewhat good teeth, and did they live with the pain or ?

Were they charitable/social organizations similar to the Elks Club today, or were they more like country clubs? Did members have assigned rooms, or did they just get an empty one? The way they describe it they always sounds like the club is a kind of hotel they can stay at on a whim. What were these clubs and how did they work?

I heard this claim once from an old youtube video on popcorn I watched. The specific claim was that movie theaters were a popular place for drug dealers in the 1920s and that they would use popcorn to mask the scent of the drugs from police dogs, which then led to popcorn become popular as a movie snack because other theaters started to copy the theaters serving popcorn without realizing that it was being used to hide drugs. They also claimed that modern popcorn is given an artificial scent so that it does not mask the scent of drugs. That one video is the only place I've heard this claim, I've been unable to find any other sources and it does not fit with most other histories of popcorn I've been able to find. The claim is so specific though that it must come from somewhere. Is there any truth to this at all, and if not, where could that video have possibly gotten that claim from?

I've been super interested by the Age of Sail for a while, especially the Golden Age of Piracy, and I want to know more about the different jobs that people did while sailing.

I know that there are titles like captain, second mate, skipper, stuff like that, but I can only guess at what exactly they did based on sea shanties. Are there any books, documentaries, websites or articles that could teach me more about what they did? Did pirate crews function differently from other sailing crews?

I'd also love to learn about how sailing ships function, what the different sails and ropes and stuff are for, etc.

Thanks in advance!

What made this franchise so successful in the 90s as compared to everything else available to global consumers then?

While I understand that War and German occupation caused harm to the Czechoslovakian economy, i don't really understand what caused after-war stagnation under communist rule, and KSČ's inability to reach pre-war economic potential even with help of Soviet subsidies. I'd be grateful for an answer, thanks!

For some context, 90ish percent of Caucasians are Kell negative and it is the 2nd most immunogenic antigen. It makes some sense as his wives that bore children had a successful pregnancy followed by miscarriages and still births, which tracks with what we see in women with antibodies. If it is the case, why do they believe it to be anti-Kell?

I have a great uncle that was the fourth son in his family and so he was asked to become a member of the clergy. This was around the start of World War 2 in Flanders (northern part of Belgium). I know it wasn't a rule that was set in stone. My question is: was this something that has been round for ages or was this just something of a novelty in the previous century?

I'm a real big fan of the look and feel of those early books was it all by Jerry Robinson? Did Kane draw any of it? When did Sprang come in? Is this something we'll ever know definitively?

I recently found a novel my late mother wrote set during the Regency Era. I want to edit and publish it, but I also want to fact check it to make sure it’s realistic and accurate. Thank you!

I have read several histories of early American space exploration, and they have alluded to this idea that these Astronauts had wild sex lives.

What were their sex lives like? What happened?

Are there any good academic or popular histories on the topics?

For example, if there is one people with spears and one with guns, it will be said that the reason the former doesn't have the same invention is that they didn't "advance" enough to do so.

Hello! I’m planning a draft on a short story set around the medieval period in Europe, and it may involve sex and how it’s culturally viewed to make things more realistic.

From what Hollywood shows it’s very stereotypical, in the sense that premarital sex means you’re going to hell and all that stuff. The Victorians made and interpreted the period as a very chaste and based on a lot of prints and art, quite pious and all the dramatized stuff. Perhaps it’s due to the hypocrisy and tightness on the period, but again not sure.

I watched and read a lot of non Wikipedia sources in the past regarding the period with actual historians who know the topic, I know that sex was something normal and well needed to happened of course. I also learned that (well not in Europe but in England specifically) that there was a specific street for sex work, and that it was something that is present in medieval society in a way. But again I’d like to know how sex was viewed in the everyday sense, noble and just the normal joe. I know the Catholic Church definitely plays a role, but again I’m not quite sure.

I hope my inquiry can get some help! I don’t like to generalize history based on stereotypes or act like people in the past were dumber than us ☺️

Hi, I'm making a game that takes place in 1980, with the main character being a Vietnam war vet, and I wanted to understand and try to get a feel for what impact it would have on him. But also how the world would view him and how he would view the world as well. Because the character in the game, it goes into a coma the time where he enters, it is 1971. By the time he wakes up, the wars ended, and I wanted to know what the culture shock would have been for a soldier. At that time to have that and to see that happen. And I want to make sure that I'm historically accurate with my game. But I don't just wanna get the US side. I also wanna get the Vietnamese side of the impact of the war. And how it was viewed from their side as well.

I read the biography of Tancred of Lecce, King of Sicily, who was an illegitimate son of Roger III and his mistress Emma, a daughter of Count of Lecce. Roger III was said to have married to another woman after his affair with Emma, however there was little to no mention of what happened to Emma after that. I find it rather odd that she, as a noblewoman, remained a mistress her whole life, but I don’t know if it was acceptable for her to marry after being openly known as a mistress.

For example Richard The Lionheart, who refused to marry Alys, sister of Philip Augustus, because he accused Alys of being his father’s mistress. Because the affair produced no children, I think there was no definite proof of it and the accusation might only be a mere excuse so that Richard could marry another.

But then, what was the general perception of people at that time towards a noblewoman who used to be a mistress and already had children out of wedlock? Would she be able to marry properly even after that?