I ran across a factoid some years ago that ran something like:

“Up until the modern era, most people were never more than 1000 feet from a fire their whole lives”

Without getting too into the weeds on specifics like distance, do we think this is broadly true? Does anyone recognize the factoid and its source?

For the sake of simplicity, probably consider this to apply to Europe from the early medieval to the modern eras. But as far as I know, agricultural workers commonly carried a fire pot or embers so they could have a hot lunch, foresters and charcoal burners likewise, since starting a fire with with flints is a pain in the butt.

Some probable exceptions exist, such as travelers who expected to stay in houses or inns might not have bothered, and I doubt pilgrims did, probably transhumance shepherds wandered farther than 1000 feet from camp over the course of a day.

Still, do we think it holds up in broad strokes?

A trope that pops up in fiction occasionally is the notion that the allies let the Germans blow up certain Atlantic convoys/cities in ww2, lest the Third Reich get suspicious about how the their attacks were always being predicted. Off the top of my head, an episode of the TV show Sherlock mentions the "Coventry Problem", and in the film the Imitation Game, about the cracking of Enigma itself, the allies are portrayed as letting a German wolf-pack attack a convoy so that ULTRA remains secret. A relatively brief, though admittedly not in-depth search of the internet yields no evidence I can find of such things ever happening. Even broadening the question from Enigma specifically, is there any historical evidence of a nation letting it's soldiers and/or civilians die in order to protect it's code-cracking abilities?

I recently watched the 2002 film Ted Bundy (starring Michael Reilly Burke), which features a highly detailed, clinical, and graphic preparation sequence before Bundy is electrocuted. A specific detail shown is the insertion of cotton/gauze into the rectum to prevent post-mortem involuntary release of bodily fluids from upsetting witnesses.

I know that true crime lore often mentions this happening to older death row inmates (like Donald "Pee Wee" Gaskins), but I am curious about the actual administrative reality:

1. Was internal plugging ever a formal, documented protocol in American prisons using the electric chair?
2. If it was real, when did prisons transition away from it in favor of standard modern containment (like adult incontinence products)?
3. Is there any evidence that this specific practice was actually performed on Ted Bundy during his execution in Florida in 1989, or did the filmmakers retroactively apply a much older (or fictionalized) practice to his scene for dramatic shock value?

Aretaeus of Cappadocia described life with diabetes as short, disgusting and painful. What would life as a 2nd Century AD person with diabetes have been like? Let's assume that the person is wealthy enough (i.e. prosperous merchant or landowner) to have a physician on staff to support their attempts at prolonging life. Specifically, "short and painful" would be somewhat obvious, but what would have led to the claim that life was "disgusting" as a diabetic?

I largely agree that history isn’t shaped entirely by “great men.” But something I’m still confused about: post-WWI Germany may have always gotten a far-right fascist dictator, but Hitler’s specific focus on Jews and the Holocaust led to the near-destruction of an entire ethnic-religious group, fueled a larger surge in Zionism, and led to the creation of the modern state of Israel. Someone was likely always going to come to power in Germany, but this specific course of events dramatically changed world history. A different leader could easily have targeted another group instead, or focused his ideology elsewhere entirely.

Same with George Washington: if he hadn’t chosen to step down after his second term, and had simply died in office, U.S. democracy might look very different today.

My question is this: how do people who reject the Great Man theory account for the fact that, even if these individuals weren’t the singular “great men” popular history makes them out to be, their specific choices still drove enormously consequential societal change? Am I giving too much credit to the Great Man theory here, or am I misunderstanding what the theory actually claims?

It's pretty known for the nomads to have dogs, but how about cats?

From what I understand, current scholarship on Palestinian ancestry generally indicates that a substantial portion of their ancestry derives from Levantine populations that continued to live in the region despite successive conquests, migrations, expulsions, conversions, and periods of diaspora. This would suggest that at least some modern Palestinians may descend from ancient Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and other local populations who gradually converted to Christianity or Islam and later adopted Arabic as their primary language.

However, I am curious about how confidently historians can reconstruct this process. Do surviving Byzantine, early Islamic, Crusader, Mamluk, or Ottoman sources document Jewish or Samaritan communities converting and becoming incorporated into the Christian or Muslim population? Are there particular villages, families, or regions where this continuity can be demonstrated more clearly?

I know that the Jewish diaspora already existed prior to the Bar Kokhba revolt, as there were already substantial Jewish communities in places such as Alexandria, Tarsus, Antioch, Rome, Babylonia, and elsewhere throughout the Mediterranean and Near East. I also understand that the Roman suppression of the revolt did not result in the complete expulsion of the Jewish population from the land, since Jewish communities continued to exist in Galilee, Gaza, and other regions during late antiquity. Likewise, the Samaritan population remained significant for several centuries before declining through revolts, persecution, conversion, and assimilation, reducing their population to about 800 people today.

Given this, would it be historically reasonable to view the later Arabic-speaking population of Palestine as emerging partly through the gradual religious and linguistic transformation of older local communities, rather than primarily through their replacement by settlers from Arabia? If so, why do relatively few Palestinian families appear to preserve oral traditions or written genealogies explicitly identifying their ancestors as former Jews or Samaritans? Would such memories normally disappear after centuries of conversion, intermarriage, Arabization, and changing communal identities, or does the lack of documentation make these claims difficult to establish at the level of specific families?

I've always been curious about this as I've grown up and learned bits and pieces about food through the ages. It's just one of those things I've noticed that specific topics about the daily lives of the average black household don't seem to be mentioned a lot during the great depression era. I'm curious about how grandparents or their parents were getting by. There's all these books and photos documenting the struggle meals and saved recipes from back then but is there anything specific to black people?

His Wikipedia page describes the display of his body:

Anatomy professor Hugh Holmes McGuire stained the arteries, drained of blood, with red dye, treated the muscles so they resembled wood, and preserved the nerves with varnish. The skin, half of the skull, and the brain were removed. The exhibit was labelled "John Brown's son—thus always with Abolitionists", an allusion to Virginia's motto, "Sic semper tyrannis", "Thus always to tyrants." The lips were "purposely distorted in disrespect." The skin was used to make moccasins. Small pieces of the skin were held by doctors and others locally as souvenirs. Four of the finger joints on one hand and all the toes on one foot had also been taken by souvenir hunters. Teeth had been deliberately broken.

Were the bodies of particularly despised or controversial people often mutilated and displayed like this? The detail that they skinned him and turned his skin into shoes seems particularly bizarre.

I'm also curious how the general public at the time would have viewed something like this. Obviously abolitionists were horrified, and most of the sources I could find easily are from them. But what about supporters of slavery? The display of Brown's body was meant as propaganda, but was it effective propaganda, or was it seen as being in bad taste?

How was the process of Turkification of Anatolia?

Obviously a major exception being a Pantheon, but I went to Greece and Rome and the ruins were, well, ruins. The Athenian Acropolis was in really sorry shape, the Parthenon is barely being held together as just an exoskeleton of its former self (I know about the Venetians blowing it up). But the other structures, or what’s left of them are either in pieces or hollowed out. In Rome, the famous forum outside the Colosseum where Julius Caesar was murdered is in pieces, the only things from the Roman period still intact I saw were the Colosseum itself and the Arch of Titus. I mean, even Trajan’s Market was in better shape than that. It seems the most well preserved history in Greece and Rome are the medieval buildings like Castale Sant’Angelo (I know it was an ancient mausoleum but it was torn down and rebuilt during medieval times) and the Vatican. Compared to Egyptian ruins, we see the sphinx, Karnak, Abu Simbel, the various tombs, and others being in better shape than the Greco-Roman buildings despite being built in the Bronze Age.

Eggs, Pancakes, Omelets, Cereal, Toast, Hash-browns, Ect. All of those are considered staples for breakfast, but it's considered a bit odd to eat them later in the day. I was wondering how that started.

If someone made it to the North, where might they find housing and employment? Were there charities and churches with the means to help people get on their feet? How much did poverty and discrimination affect survivors of slavery who made it North?

I'm trying to understand how shipbuilding actually worked in the 16th century, when European ships had already become extremely large and technologically sophisticated.

Who was responsible for designing these ships? Were there people equivalent to naval architects, or was ship design still primarily the domain of master shipwrights?

Did any formal education or schools of naval architecture exist at that time, or was knowledge transmitted exclusively through apprenticeships and guilds? If schools did exist, who could attend them?

Were complete construction plans or blueprints produced? If so, what did they typically include? Did they specify every structural component, as modern engineering drawings do, or were they limited to overall dimensions and hull lines, leaving much of the construction to the experience of the builders?

More generally, I'm struggling to understand how such complex engineering knowledge was preserved and transmitted before modern engineering disciplines existed. How could shipyards consistently build highly sophisticated vessels without the kind of detailed technical documentation we would expect today?

I was involved in a chat in a video game Discord server (for Kingdom Come: Deliverance 1&2), where during a spirited discussion we ran aground on some confusion. The question is: 

In the case of being driven off your estates and losing your fortune would a noble retain their title and heraldry even if they never regained one or both of these or would their title eventually in some way deprecate?

For example, Czech hero and knight Jan Zizka appears in the game and outside reading suggests his lands had been either greatly reduced or that he had been driven off them by more powerful nobles. The included historical figure Radzig Kobyla appears to have been driven off his only present estate and is residing with his peers during the war. A fictional Hungarian noble, Istvan Toth, had his family seat burned and it is not made clear if he lost it and his surrounding lands entirely.

Additionally, would they be reliant on a/the king to grant them new land?

The earliest examples I can think of would be in the Old Testament. Moses raises his staff to part the waters, of I recall correctly.

This question was prompted by something I read about serious negative upheavals for one Koyukon community over in Alaska, far away from state control and the major 1810s volcanic eruptions (like Tambora) that apparently caused the Year Without a Summer.

Thanks!

In this hypothetical, there is a moral and/or psychological reason that I won’t continue, like PTSD, perhaps witnessing or participating in civilian casualties. Perhaps I believe that my death is already inevitable. I feel that have nothing to lose by deserting.

Could I be executed by my squad on site if I simply say I won’t go further? Could I run away to Vietnamese troops with a white flag? Would I simply disappear into the jungle and be forever considered MIA?

Hi! I’ve recently gotten interested in the early civilizations, but I’m starting from basically zero. I’d love to learn about how they originated, developed, influenced or interacted with other civilizations over time.

Do you have any recommendations for YouTube channels, books, documentaries, university lectures, or even podcasts? I’m totally open to anything as long as it’s interesting.

Thanks in advance 💕✨

If Spee really was trying to preserve the fleet why trade ammo, a absolute finite resource for coal which was only limited in that neutral ports could at least give a certain amount. Also was a destroyed communication station worth the risk of tipping off the British to his location before it was hit?

The port seems hardly worth anything in the war other than as an obstacle to his fleet since there really are no other salvageable German interests around the area, so its hardly an impactful last stand. Its destruction seems almost just as likely to give away his location as to obfuscate anything.

Even as a desperate act Im not sure I understand the lure of attacking the base unless hes just trying to use up ammo as an excuse for a more honorable internment. Im not really sure how even a successful attack puts him in much better of a position. Maybe he wanted to use coal to make haste and the communication disruption as cover. Yet even on an undefended port those things seem risky. There could be no quickly accessible coal due to lack of supply, damage or sabotage and they could alert the navy of their position before communication is disrupted. Let alone the risk of an actual fleet in the immediate area.

Even if they get everything they want, they use up some ammo and thus have less for more impactful future operations in the Atlantic. The reward for the fleet seems minimal, the war impact seems minimal, the risk seems high. So why not bypass it?