If so, did he react*

Hello all,

I’m wondering if those in the “old west” shared and/or believed in any legends, cryptids (I don’t believe this term existed then, but the idea certainly must have), or ghost stories. I don’t necessarily mean frontier myth heroes, like Crockett or Boone, but rather things like unusual desert creatures, “haunted” locations, etc... additionally, I’m interested in any sources that might compile these types of folklore.

Thanks!

I guess I don't really know the best search terms for the US. For towns/cities in the 1880s that might be less than thirty years old and holding 500-5000 people. I did see some information on the Johnson County War, but it wasn't exactly what I was looking for.

I'm more interested in if there were strong dividing lines in a social sense between working and middle class, and what some indicators of each might be at the time and place?

I can see from one place I looked that Sheiffs made $250 a month - what class would those usually be (it is politics, after all)? The pumpworks was owned and operated by an engineer, what about him? General store, gent's clothing store, saddle store owners who worked there own stores - how were they classified? Butchers? School teachers?

Would the division have had to do with dirty work v. clean, or how manual it was?

Finladization is often discussed as a phenomenon where a small democratic country, like Finland, falls under the informal influence of a small authoritarian country, like the Soviet Union. As an idea this is all well and good, but what would be some actual historic events associated to Finladization (in Finland)? What would be the start and end date of Finlandization? Or other landmark events? Or is this just a theoretical concept without a genuine history?

A hearthfire seems obvious but the smoke would get trapped inside the yurt, wouldn't it?

Good evening,

In the last few weeks, I have listened to a few books about the battle of Midway. Primarily, the Battle of Midway by Symonds and also Shattered Sword by Tully and Parshall.

In both books, the authors describe a similar theme about the three US carriers in the battle: the Yorktown and her air group were well organized and effective; the Hornet and her air group were largely ineffective, primarily because they had massive organizational problems (like flying the wrong direction); and Enterprise was somewhere in the middle.

I am confused about how the performance of these three vessels could be so different. Presumably they received similar training and were operating under the same doctrine. And if I understand the battle correctly, this seems beyond random chance.

Was this kind of wide range in effectiveness the norm or was a Midway an outlier?

Over the course of the war, were some ships that were consistently more effective than others? If there were, what made them more effective?

Thanks in advance for your perspective!

When Chinggis Khan died, his empire was split into mutiple khanates, then ogodei Khan held the empire together under a uniform government and acted as the great khan i believe and then he died and khubali khan declared himself great khan but nobdy wanted him so he set up yuan dynast. who was the active great khan then or were chinggis and ogodei the inly 2??? correct any wrong info plz

I have only been able to find the current laws regarding marijuana in Norway. I know that the USA has a long history with criminalization and seem to be coming to accept it's use legally, but norwegians seem to be strongly opposed to legalising it. Why is that?

Starting with Fredrick III in 1415, the Habsburgs maintained the tile of Emperor of the Romans for more than 300 years, despite the devastating 30 Years' War, which devastated them financially, and I thought would turn many of the electors against them. I've also read that outright bribery, while common for the election in the Medieval period, somewhat died out in the Early Modern Period, which leaves me even more confused considering the main advantage I see the Habsburgs having for most of this period is the immense wealth of the Spanish Empire.

How exactly did the Habsburgs remain Holy Roman Emperors for 300 years, despite having been in likely the most devastating civil war in European history?

Medieval history has always fascinated me and recently my interest was piqued by the Albigensian crusade. I've been reading up about it and the Cathars' beliefs for a while now. I find it all so interesting, however, the reasons for the crusade haven't been clear to me.

I've read and understand how the Cathar's beliefs were anti-clerical in nature along with how they refused to swear oaths due to them not being subject to civil authority. Additionally, I read that the crusade was popular as it allowed warriors to win a place in Heaven without travelling far or for long as it was taking place in France.
Aside from these, however, I've been trying to find any other reasons. Seeing how the fighting was concentrated in the South, I suppose there must have been a political aspect to it. Perhaps to gain land or consolidate control over the South? Either way I'm struggling to understand. It seems like there are but I just can't wrap my head around them. If someone could outline the causes for the Albigensian crusade (the one's I've mentioned and maybe others if there are any) I would be so grateful. Additionally, if there are any primary sources that you can link to that would be fantastic as I find them so fascinating to go through.

Secondary sources and more modern book recommendations would also be appreciated as well if that's allowed on this sub.

I’ve noticed that when ever someone makes a map displaying a central powers victory they usually have Germany controlling most of the allies pacific holdings but I can’t find any evidence that they would wanna expand over there unlike Mittelafrika could anyone point me to any documents or conversations providing evidence to any thought of this?

I wonder what the advantages would be of doing this when the women also moved to the other family and were supposed to become a part of their new family and abandon their old one.

Me and my friend were talking about wealth disparity and she was saying that the rich in the medieval times had it worse than we think. Their choices were limited by their conditions, as in choice to marry and do family politics and such. Whilst I get her point, I don't think It is comparable to the poor of the times, who died. I said I sympathize with the poor and I'd rather "eat the rich" and I won't cut the rich slack because of this to which she got offended. Now I'm wondering if I was wrong? Please can someone help me out? Give me suggestions to read about the same?

From what I gathered it seems the two were childhood friends and grew up together, but given how difficult it was to navigate Henry VIII's court for so long, how did their friendship lasted so long? Brandon was even named duke in order to marry Henry's sister despite Henry being against it, instead of falling from grace for it. Some even claim there was more than simple friendship between the two, but I couldn't find trustworthy sources on the matter.

Why was Brandon so special for Henry VIII? Was their friendship really so strong or was he also too good or too indispensable to be cast aside?

(sorry if the question isn't well written, English is not my first language)