Were the Anglo saxons and the Saxony province of Germany trade partners after the Anglo Saxons left the German/danish area for England in the 500s?

How connected did they stay throughout their history if at all? Or did the Anglo Saxon tribe completely leave for good when they left?

The pretext behind the Japanese conquests was freeing East Asia from Western imperialism (which was obvious nonsense) so how did they actually treat conquered people?

A group of crows is a murder. A group of monkeys is a troop. I guess a group of rabbits is apparently called a fluffle? I found dozens and dozens of these just poking around on Google.

When did we start calling groups of animals by, uh, unique names like this? Who decided on all of these, and why did society at large follow suit?

I often read that the main difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism is that Stalin wanted to focus on maintaining socialism in the Soviet Union whereas Trotsky wanted to export socialism all across the world by one means or another.

But if Stalin sincerely believed that socialism was good, and genuinely thought of himself as at war with the West, why would he NOT want to focus on cultivating socialism elsewhere? And if I’m not mistaken, aren’t there examples of him trying to do so?

What exactly were Trotsky and Stalin thinking at the time? Why was their disagreement so deep? What exactly were they disagreeing about? Was Trotsky just upset that Stalin got to be General Secretary? Was it just a power feud or was it an ideological one?

Various sources I've seen credit edged weapons with 15-20% of the casualties in the European line infantry era. For instance:

1715 Paris Invalides records for wounded men:

Infantry small arms: 71.4%

Swords: 15.8%

Artillery: 10%

Bayonets: 2.8%

Source: John Lynn, "Giant of the Grand Siecle: The French Army, 1610–1715", 1997, p. 489

1762 Paris Invalides records for wounded men:

Infantry small arms: 68.8%

Swords: 14.7%

Artillery: 13.4%

Bayonets: 2.4%

Source: John Muir, "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon", 1996, p. 46 (both this and Lynn's seem to reference the same source, Corvisier)

European and American casualties in wars from 1800 to 1850:

Infantry small arms: 30-40%

Artillery: 40-50%

Edged weapons: 15-20%

Source: Trevor Dupuy, "Handbook on Ground Forces Attrition in Modern Warfare", 1986, p. 55

On top of that, pistols and shell splinters would also account for some, folded into the greater "small arms" and "artillery" categories. I mention these classes of threat in particular because they're all things that well-made plate armor could potentially protect one against, as detailed quite well in Alan Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" chapter 9.4. Contemporary military thinkers were clearly aware of this, as heavy cavalrymen ("cuirassiers") continued to be infrequently issued plate armor even in the mid to late 19th centuries, beyond the era where it was actually useful.

My question is this: why was this limited solely to some cavalrymen? I can see why it might be too expensive or troublesome to give to every grunt. But why was it not issued to shock troopers like grenadiers, who were expected to get into hand-to-hand combat with some frequency (hence why they, unlike the common infantry, were issued swords and sometimes grenades alongside their bayonets)? Or to garrison troops in towns, who (by contemporary observations) got into hand-to-hand combat far more frequently than men in the open field? Or even to all cavalrymen, whose primary role involved close combat with pistols and swords (and occasionally lances and axes)? By the early 17th century munitions plate was cheap and mass-produced to the extent you could outfit every grunt in it if you wanted to, and technology only improved as the centuries went on. Was it purely an issue of weight and comfort (a well-made cuirass is about 20 pounds)?

Did anyone even think to do this? Were arguments made for or against it at the time? It just seems odd to me that even in armies that heavily emphasized close combat, like the Swedish Caroleans, keeping plate armor for select infantry never seemed to be considered except as a fashion statement for some officers. Even in WWI, when it would have been far less useful, some shock troopers wore breastplates.

I’m writing a story that takes place in rural Colorado in 1921. I’m trying to find out if my protagonist would have access to a phone.

Here's what the person claimed:

Hallowe'en is traditionally a non-event here in England, because our population is overwhelmingly atheist or agnostic.

But how Hallowe'en is "celebrated" elsewhere in the world is weird. Imagine if you celebrated Christmas Eve, but then completely forgot or ignored the significance of the day after Christmas Eve, the 25th December! Let me explain....

The name Hallowe'en is an old contraction of All Hallows' Evening.

Hallow means "Holy one" (implying someone who is/was Saintly) and the e'en of Hallowe'en is from the Old English contraction of the word "evening" in its context of meaning "the day before".

Hallowe'en (All Hallows' Evening) is just the day before All Hallows' Day, which is the 1st of November.

The 1st of November is an actual Christian day of solemn celebration of all Saints of the Christian religion and is known as All Saints Day, All Hallows' Day or Hallowmas.

The whole ghosts, ghouls, witches, costumes and pumpkins thing really has nothing to do with the true Hallowe'en either. That all originates from the Christian and corporate America reinvention and rebranding of the ancient Celtic-Pagan festival of Samhain, as both a way to persuade non-Christians into their churches, and for businesses to make money out of a completely ficticious and remanufactured "holiday" event.

I forgot to mention the 2nd of November; All Souls' Day - the day which Christians commemorated all deceased people who were not Hallowed or Saints.

All Souls Day was traditionally the day after All Hallows' Day. All Souls' Day was also a day for the poor to go knocking on wealthier people's doors for donor gifts of "Soul Cakes" (a kind of biscuity scone like cake) in exchange for prayers for deceased loved ones souls.

Undoubtably, this "Soul Cakes" thing has its origins from the Scottish Pagan tradition of Guising (from "disguising") oneself in a disguise, then asking for gifts of food in exchange for a trick came from. They wore disguises in order to blend in with stray spirits. This Scottish tradition over time evolved into Trick Or Treating when Scots migrated to America, taking their pagan tradition with them. Scots still call it Guising today.

In Ireland, there was also a Pagan tradition of carving Jack O'Lanterns from turnips at Samhain. No, not pumpkins, because pumpkins were not natively found in Ireland. Irish immigrants to North America's east coast could not find turnips there, so they continued their Jack O'Lantern tradition by carving the pumpkins they found there instead.

So basically, the American version of "Hallowe'en" has stolen the Irish and Scottish pagan traditions of Samhain, then used these in combination with the Christian Hallowe'en name, the day which precedes both All Hallows' Day and All Souls' Day.

Is there any truth to what this person said?

For example, writing history itself can suffer a myriad of problems such as the historian's selectivity and confirmation bias.

Then, would historical sources (like oral history interviews, other kinds of testimony, etc.) suffer the same kind of problems? E.g. would it be fair to say that an oral history interview suffers selectivity because it only encapsulates a single person's perspective? Or should this be considered "subjectivity" instead? I was just having this conundrum because I was wondering if the creator of a primary source can be considered a "historian" as well, if the primary source can be considered a record of history.

I know that the term 'Dark Ages' is thrown around a lot without that context that, in the period of time after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europeans, North Africans, and Middle Easterners all developed and continued to progress, culturally, socially, and technology.

What my question is asking, though, is this: did medieval Europeans know that they had lost access to the more advanced technologies and political organization of the Roman Empire and its immediate successors? Or were they, for one reason or another, kept in the dark? It seems like it would be so strange and existentially frustrating to know that there was a civilization not-too-long-ago that was more advanced than your own, but their advances still be, for whatever reason, just out of reach.

Please feel free to correct me on any misconceptions!

I have a feeling it's related to the dynasty, 漢 has 帝s (漢文帝,漢武帝), while 宋 (宋仁宗, 宋高宗) and 明 (明宣宗, 明英宗) have 宗s.

Off the top of my head, the first examples that come to mind are the faiths created by people who were enslaved and brought to the Americas. When I thought of the question I was wondering specifically about China and East Asian religions more generally, which I know next to nothing about.

This is obviously a very broad question, so if it would be at all helpful please feel free to ask for clarification or greater specificity on my part. Thank you!

My dad was a history major and recently had to move to a nursing home and give away his large collection of books. He asked me to get him a book on Stalin (he has read a lot already on him). Any recommendations? Maybe something written in the last 20 years as I'm guessing the books he's read are from before then. I don't think length of book is an issue. He seems to enjoy very thick books!😁 Thank you!!

Particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries

I have heard that it was very comprehensive and put the Mafiosi at a disadvantage they would never see again in Italy after his overthrow, but that felt rather propagandistic to me. Can I have a more measured view of this? Was the supposed cleanup just as fake or exaggerated as Hitler's reinvigoration of the German economy?

I was just reading about the sinking of the CSS Albemarle during the civil war. After the vessel was sunk, it was then raised again by the Union Navy. Although the vessel sunk in shallow water with the upper parts of the ship still above water, the hull was badly damaged from a spar torpedo attack. That got me wondering: how would they have raised the ship without modern cranes and stuff on other ships and how did they get it back to land to fix it?

I am at a cross roads where I recently left my faith. I was taught my whole life things about Jesus from the Bible. I was curious what historians say about him.