Whenever I read about the Arthurian myths modern sources seem to regularly call it Welsh, but culturally (in the United States at least) it seems more associated with Britain as a whole.

When/why did this transition happen, or is it just an artifact of America's ignorance of the nations of Britain?

Dropping someone out of a Helicopter seems like a very imprecise execution method, so was there anyone that experienced the Death flights and lived to talk about it?

I was reading the original pdf of a book published in early 1800s. I noticed this little oddity on very page. My first guess was maybe binding was fragile at that time, so it was included to not lose the flow of text. But then every page was numbered, rendering this last word's use useless.

Any idea why this was used, and not used in our contemporary books ?

There was an article on the front page yesterday about how outdated and inflexible the current Japanese business and bureaucratic systems are in their response to Covid, and commenters were bringing up stories about the high levels of inefficiencies when dealing with Japanese businesses (e.g. international representatives having to phone home to consult their superiors for every decision) in general.

The current "outdated and inflexible" systems must have worked at some point in the past for Japan to have gotten to where it is now, right? How did these business and bureaucratic norms form in the first place, and what roles did they play in rebuilding Japan in the post-war era up until the present?

I have heard that the war mas an attempt of the dictator of that time to legitimize himself and appear powerful, but that in reality hus army consisted mostly of unpreprared teenagers. Is this true?

Working with stone creates a great deal of dust and other irritants. I imagine most historical craftsmen didn't wear much safety equipment. Over time, working around stone dust without proper safety equipment can seriously damage a person's lungs, causing scarring and breathing issues. Do we have records of renaissance or ancient sculptors struggling with this sort of lung damage?

Looking into Jefferson is fascinating - his life is so packed with accomplishments, failures, great ideas, and horrific mistakes, and he is somehow very consistent in spite of being such a deeply contradictory person...

By the time he emancipated her children, the people of his time definitely knew of the allegations regarding his relationship with Sally Hemmings, questions about it having been publicly raised numerous times in the past. One would think that the Federalists would have used the emancipation to further reinforce the character questions they’d previously put forth about him, and that even Democratic-Republicans would have balked at the potentially nepotistic optics of the situation.

Did people at large generally not know about this action? Was emancipation a totally private happening? Am I using as a model too modern of a relationship between the press/public and the political elite of the time? It would be understandable if, in a time before universal education and suffrage, people were less informed or politically involved...but also, the salacious nature of the accusations would have been base enough for even the crudest American to understand...

I have a lot of questions about the morality of this time, the combination of what would now be considered extreme religiousness with such callous indifference to the suffering created by chattel slavery smacks of such deep hypocrisy to my modern mind that it’s almost unintelligible. Still, I can clearly see how even people as morally alien to my own sensibilities could find problems with emancipation of slavery based on a potential kinship. I would greatly appreciate any illumination that can be shed on how society reacted to learning that one of their founding fathers was giving preferential treatment to the products of a long term, inter-racial sexual relationship with a slave he owned; I think it might help some other, broader pieces of my understanding of the time fall more accurately in place. Thanks!

In 1942, they bombed an oil field north of LA. Balloon bombs were launched, and 25 were found in CA, but none caused injuries. And then of course, various ships were attacked. Aside from these, it doesn't seem like there was any real attempt at attack or invasion. Why is this?

I love looking at maps and learning history. I'm not picky about the historical subject, and am just as happy reading about Napoleon's adventures in the Po valley as I am reading about exchanges between colonial societies in the West Indies. I read history at a university level. Thank you.

I am looking for accounts from the perspective of Native North or South Americans of visits to Europe. We have lots of the reverse, Europeans describing the Americas, are there any historical records of the other way round?

Didn’t the UK have a deal with Poland that if anyone attacks Poland the UK will attack them? That’s why the UK declared war on the Third Reich. So why didn’t they declare war on the USSR since the soviets also attacked Poland?

I've been hearing people say that, quite contrary to the idea that he pushed it to extremes, he was actually a moderate in comparison and tried to make sure there were no needless deaths. How true is that, and if so, how much of a moderate was he?

I've seen claims to this but can find no evidence backing it up.

How would somebody find a list of the Pharaohs that are known by ancient inscriptions, monuments, tombs, pyramids etc.? In other words, which Pharaohs do we know about aside from written history (e.g. Herodotus, Manetho etc.)?

Thank you!

So I've read that when the Normans conquered Sicily it was already majority Muslim. This seems like an awfully high conversion rate given that Muslims had only ruled the island for 120 years or so is there are reason the population converted so quickly. Additionally how divided was in the island in terms of Sunni versus Shia.

I have recently read through the first several chapters of Sparta and Lakonia A regional history 1300–362 BC by Paul Cartledge, and while as far as I can tell it does an outstanding job of addressing the topic above, really in quite specific detail as it relates to Laconia, and in general summarizes and engages with the existing literature regarding the topic in what to me appears to be a thorough and comprehensive manner, the lack of information available left a lot of unknowns and a lot to guess work.

Cartledge himself certainly provided, either through direct recommendation or his citations, plenty sources to look at for additional information and contrary opinions on the subject. But the book is almost twenty years old now, and my question is is there any new scholarship that has come out since then related to this topic that has been able to shed some new light onto this subject, or which has furthered the discussion in some way? I suppose if Cartledge specifically omitted or overlooked something glaring that wouldn't be bad to know either, though I would think someone would raise that in a publication in response, and therefore get lumped in with the new scholarship.

I certainly understand there just might not be anything new out there because nothing new has been found. And so far, I haven't been able to find anything since then on Google or Jstor.

Thanks in advance.