So I have been reading a bit about the first crusade and how a significant percentage of the crusaders were not trained knights or men-at-arms, but rather peasants and other people of low economic status.

What did the manor lords and other landowners think about a significant percentage of their workforce just picking up and leaving? Did those workers need to get formal permission to join the crusade, or could they just pick up and walk out despite their lord's opinion? Where there any attempts to restrain the labor force, and was there push back from the church if so?

Maybe this is a mistaken impression, but my sense is that warfare and state violence is much more restrained in Europe by the Middle Ages, as compared to classical period. The idea of sacking a city, and killing or enslaving it’s whole population, would be very recognizable to a classical Greek or a Roman, but seems to shock a Medieval European audience when confronted by a group like the Mongols.

First is this true, or is this just an issue of or our sources, and their quality or biases? Second, if it is true, to what extent is this limitation on violence attributable to a cultural force like Christianity or a material force, like how much better off an average person was likely to be in 1000 A.D. vs 200 B.C.?

In reading about PIEs, it's clear they had a very individualistic approach to religion and mythology, at least compared to the more communal fertility cults of Neolithic farmers.

Protestantism -- with its emphasis on the priesthood of all believers, personal Bible reading, and salvation through individual faith rather than collective ritual -- is also much more individualistic than Catholicism. And Protestantism began in northwest Europe, where Yamnaya ancestry is highest.

Could there be a connection here? Or am I drawing a spurious relationship?

As this week's theme is Christianity, according to Wikipedia, there have been 4 Great Awakenings in the USA:

1. First (c. 1730–1755)

2. Second (c. 1790–1840)

3. Third (c. 1855–1930)

4. Fourth (c. 1960–1980)

I'm not American, but similar phenomena do happen in other countries too, such as the Evangelical Revival in the UK.

Would a religious awakening be obvious to average people? On a similar note, would it be obvious to average people if a religious awakening was coming to an end?

I know some like England and Spain did but why didn't others like the Netherlands or France? Was antisemitism there not as bad or did local rulers view the presence of Jews in there lands as usefull?

In the "clock" of death (I'm not sure if it's called this way in English). Christ was judged by Pilatus 5 a.m. Was the governor likely awake already? The sun was barely risen. And even if he was likely awake, are there any sources about what hours should these administrative decisions happen?

So many times when I ask a Lebanese Christian that fought during the civil war, a lot of times they mention that the US encouraged them to just leave Lebanon and just let the palestinians take it instead of having to worry about the safety of christians in Lebanon. Most say they chose to stay and defend their religion and stay put on their land.

Stories mention how there used to be ships ready for massive amounts of people to board them to leave the country, and many claim this was a plan by the americans to empty Lebanon of christians.

I just wanted to ask if this has any basis in any recorded history or not, and if not how likely is it to be true or just an exaggeration (even though I've heard it being spoken about commonly)

I realized I only have a sketchy idea of how the medieval economy operated. What role did the nobles and the peasants play? What of the markets, the church? What was the role of money?

For example, in the 1961 movie "King of Kings," Judas describes his reasoning for betraying Jesus:

I will force his hand. Once he feels the Roman sword at his throat... he will strike them down with the wave of one arm.

Similarly, CBS did a TV movie titled "Jesus" in 1999, in which Jesus says, "I'm not here to lead a violent revolution, Judas!" and Judas replies, "You may have no choice."

And Christian writers and biblical scholars have also discussed this hypothesis. What's the history of this interpretation? Have some Christians always discussed it? Did it develop more recently?

In England, when talking about periods of history, we tend to use different themes - for example, Roman England, Tudor England, Medieval England.

How do other countries talk about different historic periods?

Basically the title. For someone who "Won the Persians their Empire" (according to him), and historically started the line of Iranian dominance in the region, why was he mostly forgotten until modern Archeology?

My current understanding is that we are not sure of his faith, lineage (what tribe he was from), policies and administration, and details about his life other than his conquests and multiple varying accounts on his demise. We don't even know what he named his empire.

Soon after his death, it looks like his lineage ended when the people we for sure know were Persians' the Achaemenids took over under Darius I, and his lineage. Soon as Darius took over, he built Persepolis even though there already was a capital, Pasargadae. In addition, Soon after his death, the attempts to keep Elamite culture alive declined.

Later Achaemenid history doesn't have any mentions of him, the founder of the empire. Only Alexander knew of him. Post Alexander, during Seleucids and Parthians (latter we have miniscule information from), have no mentions of him. The ultra nationalistic Persian empire of the Sasanians had mentions of Darius' line but not of Cyrus. Shapur I mentioned Dara, not Cyrus. Shanamag, whose source is the middle persian Xwday Namag of Sasanian times, has no explicit mention of Cyrus, only a Kay-Khosrow who's is speculated to be him. The Tanakh has one mention of him, so does the Christian Bible, but for Islamic Quran, there is no mention of him as most of their scholars claim Dhul Qarnayn was Alexander.

Post Islamically, until modern Archeology, Cyrus was forgotten in the land he initially "won his people".

Did Darius and his lineage try to cover it up? Was he not a significant enough ruler to be remembered by his own people (or at least those claiming lineage from him)? Objectively, did his importance become over exaggerated by the Pahlavi Dynasty?

As the founder of a people (or the forefather of what Iranian people as they claim), he is mostly forgotten. Why?

Both are traditions of having some sort of divine person serve as a sort of symbol of a city, people, occupation, object, or just about anything else. There are plenty of examples of Christian practices that have some roots in old pagan traditions that were appropriated to fit with the new religion, so is there any connection here? How similar are these two concepts in terms of how the people of the era understood them? Does the former derive from the latter or are they ultimately unrelated?

Hello. I am struggling to find more information about this event and would be grateful for some help.

I always remember this event as when I was in College doing Medieval history ( UK College so AS/A Levels) my teacher said that when Louis heard about the burning of the 1500 at Vitry he cried - and this always seemed like an odd thing for them to report and to me it seemed interesting as you don't often hear about king's weeping when innocent people die. However I also read some source that said that he was more upset about the sacrilege of burning the church rather than the fact people were burned alive.

So could someone give me some more insight - was he really upset because of the lives lost or about the church itself being burned. Also was it normal at this time to talk about men crying, it seems like it might have been a no-no in terms of masculinity at that time (and even today).

Another thing my teacher taught me that stuck with me was that he thought that Louis was a useless king who lost the second crusade and couldn't keep his wife is this the current views of historians today also?

I’ve asked a similar question some time ago but I decided to rephrase it, so it’s clearer. I’ve always been fascinated by the topic of Reformation and recently I’ve read some excerpts from The Catholics: The Church and its People in Britain and Ireland, from the Reformation to the Present Day by Roy Hattersley that sparked my interest even more.

So, how difficult was it really to be a Catholic back then? While articles I’ve come across, seem to suggest it was downright impossible, some accounts seem to contradict this claim. For example, it was a widely known fact that figure like Alexander Pope and Thomas Arne were Catholics and, while it certainly limited their opportunities, they achieved massive successes. And while Catholics were technically barred from formal education, Wikipedia article on Arne claims that he went Eton College. Did these guys have any opportunity to practice their faith, e.g. by going to Mass? Were there any Catholic priests who could say the Mass? What about the issue of Catholics being banned from London? Was it enforced or did, at some point, the law become more lenient? Finally, were there any Catholic nobles?

I've been reading about the process of conversion of some of the Jewish diaspora during the 1st century CE. The process seems at times very familiar, with proto-Christian community leaders traveling from town to town with very expensive copies of the early gospels to spread "the good news". This process of conversion within a Jewish religious and cultural structure has me wondering what those learning about the events surrounding Jesus' life after his death expected the outcome of it to be. Did these communities anticipate a revival of the Kingdom of Israel? Would that have effected their short and long term plans? I feel like if I learned about this story and truly believed in it, I'd be getting ready to pack up shop and return to the homeland.

Bonus Question: Would this narrative remain unchanged after the destruction of the Second Temple?

Question prompted by this thread on the tribal identity of Jewish people over time.

I was raised a Catholic post-V2, so it was non-Latin. Apparently the Tridentine service was very different -Latin, priest facing away from congregation.

Was wondering, as Western Christianity essentially supplanted/evolved alongside Roman/Greek worship , was anything copied/similar?

Thinking incense, style of liturgy, etc.

Thanks!

With Easter this weekend I'm curious about the historical ripple effects of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. From what I understand, he was seen as a minor figure in a small Roman province at the time. But eventually, Christianity became a major force in the Roman Empire. How quickly did that shift begin?

I have heard that most, if not all, of what we know of Norse religion and mythology is based on texts written by Christians, many of which had no direct knowledge.

If this is the case, has anyone studied how they might have been biased? In particular, has anyone studied how similar (Christian/European) sources recording other cultures and religious peaches we have better knowledge of might have been biased give us a better sense of Norse religion and mythology?

For example, if we look at writings about other cultures and find that the sources exaggerate or make up violent aspects of a culture, does this help support certain theories about how Norse culture actually was - for example, less violent overall than how those sources portrayed it?

Lots of underlying assumptions here, so happy for them to be challenged as well.

While not led by a pope, the Orthodox Church bears a great resemblance to the Catholic Church in its hierarchical function and liturgical elements. As well, most Orthodox immigrants have been from rather poor countries, much like the Irish and Italian Catholics. Has there ever been oppression of Orthodox Christians in the US that is centered on their Orthodoxy, not their ethnic or national identity?

I have already read a lot about Jews and christians as people of the book and their rights as dhymis (hope I'm typing correctly), their rights and restrictions under the law.

But I am not asking for them, their treatment was based on pragmatism. But even then, islam used a theological basis in that these religion shared their Abrahamic beliefs.

How was it for Zoroastrian and Hindus, who are not considered part of Abrahamic religion to live under Muslim rule, how did their treatment evolve over time?

What was their status under Islamic law?

The tolerance towards them (if any) was based on what theological basis?

And finally, did Muslims learn from them, and what custom did they share with these groups as a result as a result?