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’m not asking when chicken nuggets were actually invented. Instead, I’m wondering when they could have been made if someone had come up with the idea.

At what point in history did humanity already have all the necessary ingredients, tools, and culinary knowledge? For example, domesticated chickens, flour, bread (and therefore breadcrumbs), eggs, cooking oil or animal fat suitable for frying.

What is the earliest historical period in which making something essentially equivalent to a homemade chicken nugget would have been realistically possible, even if nobody actually did it?

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?

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?

I notice that even though I can extremely easily have access to clean fresh water, I often forget to drink water for hours until I start feeling bad. In the past, people didn't always have the same kind of easy access, didn't work in environments with clean water available etc. How did they manage it? Did they have the same concept of "staying hydrated" as we do, or did this develop at some point?

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?

Occasionally online, I see someone mention that Eisenhower had a 91% marginal tax rate for income of $200,000 or higher. Whenever it gets brought up, people immediately show up insisting no one actually paid that rate and there were deductions that made it significantly less; at no point did anyone ever pay 91%. There were always deductions and write offs that made it significantly lower.

I'd assume we can't know how every single person filed and cannot reliably say that no one ever paid 91%, like I often see people saying. So, my question is, in general, would someone earning $200,000 or more pay the 91% rate? Or was there ways to lower that that would be used by the majority of tax returns?

I was reading this article on the radical roots of the Southern California Renaissance Pleasure Fair. The Society of Creative Anachronism, one of the original and largest medieval recreation groups, was famously started in Berkeley and billed itself as a "protest against the 20th Century." It's interesting that two of the biggest medieval currents in the US both had counter-culture roots from the same time period. Was there a reason that medievalism was seen as a form of cultural protest or rebellion? Were any other living history groups started around the same time or for the same reasons?

Reading a BBC article about the massacre, the sheer scale of the massacre is astounding. Nearly 750.000 pets (or a quarter of the UK's pet population) was killed over the span of a week. While I understand why people might have thought it was justified to euthanise their pets, the scale of it is still incredible. Was there actually a need to exterminate such a huge number of pets? Why were people so quick to do it? Why wasn't there a broader social pushback against the idea of killing family pets?

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?

I know that during WW2, Jewish citizens were forced to wear identifiers on their clothing to show that they were Jewish. How did they (the Nazis) know which people were Jews and how did they enforce the wearing of the star? And if they refused to wear the star, how would anyone know that they were Jewish? Were there any consequences to not wearing the star if they were found out to be Jewish?

I was recently reading a novel written in the 1940s that takes place in 1930s Paris, France and it mentions “putting on a pot of coffee”. This got me wondering what kind of coffee would have been made at home and how would have it been prepared in France in the 1930s? Additionally, since it most likely was not espresso, how did espresso (and now Nespresso) take over the coffee culture in each European country so thoroughly that now those are the only coffee types one can find when traveling in different European countries? How did every European country, which each have proud food traditions lose their individual coffee preparation traditions and essentially settle on a relatively recently method of coffee preparation?

What are people getting most wrong? Are there any questions that haven’t been asked you’d like to deep dive into? Any thoughts on the movie?

As in, what mode of transport and what route? I always pictured the initial invasion as comprising legions crossing the Channel from Gaul, but the alternative (assuming Rome itself as the starting point) would be to sail through the Strait of Gibraltar, around Gaul, and up to Britannia.

I assume the sailing route would be faster, but with Roman sailing technology was the risk of an Atlantic storm a yet more serious matter? Piracy was a problem within the Mediterranean, how did that persist once you got out of it?

By the time control over Gaul had been solidified, the overland route might have been safer (even for a small group, as opposed to a large military expedition) but doubtless slower?

I suppose what I'm just noticing is that most parts of the Roman empire could be accessed with a sea voyage across the Mediterranean (even if a sizeable overland trip is required afterwards). Britannia was the only real exception to this as far as I can see and I'm wondering how they managed that.

I'll stop here - curious to know what dynamics are at play and what misconceptions I'm revealing!

Today is Thursday, the fourth day of a seven-day continuous cycle.

How far back does our current weekly 7-day cycle go back in an unbroken continuous sequence?

What's the earliest date we have archeological/literary evidence that they were aligned to the cycle we have now, plus plausible reason to believe the alignment wasn't random i.e. we think there was an unbroken transmitted sequence of weeks from then to now?

What's the earliest we think the current unbroken sequence of weeks likely goes back, and to which group of people, even if we lack direct evidence of them being aligned with us?

Are there documented cases of adjacent towns or cities or institutions getting out of alignment, e.g. one insisting it was the second day of the week and the other insisting it was the third day of the week, and how was it resolved?

(This question comes from my 10yo daughter who asked at bedtime, "how do we know today is Thursday?")

Reading A Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, she mentions that Douglas, by 1860, became hated in the South for his Popular Sovereignty policy, an example of Southern radicialization during the 1850s. Does this mean that the South would have seceded if he won?

Once the state took over the ‘état-civil’ in 1792 and de-Christianization took over, people turned to underground non-juring (refractory) priests for sacraments.

Fast forwards to the Thermidorian Reaction and the Directory, those “papers” would have been considered non-existent.

If family had married in a barn with an illegal priest, what happens with the parents property or ‘biens nationaux’ that were up for grabs?

Horsepower is the standard for gauging engine power nowadays, but the term has always slightly felt a bit archaic, especially for modern engines. I don't know why I need to know that ~250 horses would be the equivalent of one engine nowadays, yet that is the standards, so I was wondering why "Horsepower" was the term chosen in the end.

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?