There's a lot of information to be found on heirs in the medieval period and generally information about the person that gets the throne or title.

However, assuming the noble's title just went to the firstborn. What would happen to the noble's youngest children. What kind of jobs would they typically go to or what roles could they fulfill? In addition the eldest would often be the ones betrothed, but did the same happen to the younger ones or would they become something of a bargain-bin marriage?

Was there a backspace equivalent? Also, while I’m at it, was a second operator needed to ensure the message being sent was accurate and not sabotaged? Thanks in advance.

Iceland is known to be democracy since foundation. How much truth is in that? Was that a "democracy" of the upper class / nobility? Or did the whole society down to an average housewife or fisherman could participate in some way in decision making?

In terms of percentage of soldiers i mean, not total number.

Wasnt WW2 worse?

I've been envisioning a depiction of a civil-war era Union solider alongside a Canadian soldier of the same era, but I can't find any good info on what such a Canadian soldier would have looked like. Any ideas?

So because Crusader Kings 3 came out, I’m on a bit of a William the Conqueror kick. This comes on the tail of a recent fascination with Alfred the Great and pre “England” Britain brought on by The Last Kingdom. Historical fiction, bringing the layman to the yard (laden with misconception, I’m sure).

It strikes me that the Norman conquest came about 200 years after Alfred, (and for that matter—Rollo). I think the sort of lay historiography considers the invasion a “French” or specifically “Norman” invasion of England, but was it maybe more like other Norse invasions that came before?

Since Robert was the eldest son of William the Conqueror, shouldn’t he had be the one to get the Kingdom of England instead of William Rufus who was the second son of William The Conqueror? Was it because of their relationship or was it because of another reason?

I'm sure this has been asked before, but, historically, do we have any answers as to why this is such an acceptable form of intoxication?

Would the Ephors balance it out? Or would the kings have to compromise eventually? I’d love to read more about this from a primary or secondary source

Would they have been seen as blessed by God, or possibly as having sold their soul to the devil?

I've searched around for an answer on the web but found squat, so I came here!

I know that Chinese Emperors have era names (like Taizong, Xuanzong, Yongle, Kangxi etc etc), as well as given names, and are often referred to by modern historians using their era names.

Given that contemporary subjects and ministers would probably never dare to refer to an Emperor by their given name and will almost always refer to them simply as Emperor:

When would a Chinese Emperor either use or be referred to by their given name, if ever at all?

So I've been interested lately in history from the first half of the 20th century (mainly pre late 60s) in the United States. I feel like I have a basic understanding of the events after the huge social changes of the late 60s, and the political events that occurred after that up until now (though there's a lot still that I would like to learn). And so, the first half of this century is giving me interest.

I know it's a very broad period, but that's kind of the point. I feel that there are many books outlining specific events (WWI & II, the Cold War, the atom bomb, the New Deal, the Depression, etc) but I'm looking for a broad overview. I just generally want to know more about the whole timeline. I feel like I don't know enough about Hoover or Eisenhower or Wilson or Truman, for example. What were their presidencies like?

So yeah, TLDR: I want to read a book (or actually a documentary could work too?) about the first half of the 20th century in the US, approx. up to the late 60s. Is there such a thing? Or maybe a few books covering certain portions?

Hello!

I am currently taking a Mongols and Vikings seminar at my High School. Currently, we are exploring the Mongols through Jack Weatherford's book: Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Obviously, there are several points of contention about the book and I'd rather not get into that.

We are supposed to write about a topic regarding the vikings and mongols, and I choose food history. Ideally, I would want to compare the food cultures but intuitively I think that is unreasonable since their food cultures were tailored to their needs for their times.

Rather, I want to draw parallels between their techniques, tools, and overall food products. I have been going through online archive sites like Jstor and Questia (since my school provides them) and haven't found much substantial material about either. Likewise, my google searches repeat basic facts about what they ate and such.

For those of you historians on this subreddit who are familiar with food history, what resources would you recommend for me to search?

I appreciate your time.

I know that there is some debate about if Jesus was even real. From a historical perspective, how much evidence is there of Jesus's existence, and did the Romans record anything about him during his life?

Edit: Title is meant to say were.

I mean everything before the first world war. I just haven't heard any story about e.g. Roman legionnaires or British redcoats having such problems after returning home.

Throughout my historical adventure and recent venture into r/BadHistory, I have realized that a vast majority of HistoryTube are not very good educational due to at the very best some biased sources used in the videos and at the very worst none. Because of this, I was just wondering what are the good HistoryTubers out there?