"... At age 24 he held the lists at St. Ingelbert for thirty days, the most admired exploit of his generation. "

Many people have heard of American internment camps for the Japanese after 1941, did the British have anything similar? If not, how were British Germans treated, did they lose any rights? Were they able to join the military?

Cheers for the help!

I'm making maps, and knowing how much agrarian surface in a medieval-style setting with tempered climate would typically be needed to sustain a given surface of settled land (for a smaller town) would be very helpful. If this question was answered earlier, a link would do just fine :)

PTSD following modern warfare engagements seem terrible and influence the daily life and potentially family relationships for those who suffer from it.

Are there any comprehensive studies looking at how PTSD could have potentially affected society as a whole in medieval times? I can imagine killing people from close up with a sword instead of far away with a gun could increase the likelihood of PTSD.

In a society where a large chunk of all men take part in this kind of warfare at some point in their life, how would that have affected that society when these men re-enter it?

I'm reading about the antisemitism in many great German personalities like Martin Luther and Karl Marx, and how this collective thought could have influenced Hitler.

Recently watched that series on Netflix. They mention that the Romans were really broke and struggled to pay their mercenaries. But why? You'd think due to their key position, they'd be raking in gold from all the ships coming through? Plus as all they had was the city and some small Greek territories, they hardly had a huge military expenditure.

I read that mercenary companies formed during The Hundred Years War were known to loot or hold settlements for ransom in France and elsewhere after The Treaty of Bretigny, when hostilities were supposed to stop. These mercenaries were later employed by both sides when hostilities resumed. Considering that armed conflict required the pretext of a just cause, what justification could these bands give for plundering the subjects of their future employer, enough so that the criminal nature of their actions could be overlooked? When taking over a town for ransom, how would they frame their request? I imagine if they were blunt about it, they would never be employed by the ruler of those lands again.

that is, where it came from, and how it came to be revised significantly downward 25+ years after the fact?

I mean there is no honor in murdering innocent children/women. How did people feel about a king/knight/prince that did such horrible acts during the middle ages??

The romans conquered many lands on the shores of the Mediterrean, and latin became spoken in the western part of the empire. In Gallia and Hiberia, latin replaced the previous languages and evolved differently. But as far as I know, latin wasn't implemented to the natives celts in the southern part of Great Britain, the language stayed and became later Welsh and Breton. Why ?

Yesterday I learned that the big black rock that muslims worship in Mecca is actually a building called the House of Allah (my Persian girlfriend corrected me once she had stopped laughing) and I'm really curious as to how this house became so central to the Muslim religion.

You're meant to pray in the direction of Mecca and travel on a pilgrimage to this house once a year if you have the means to do so. It seems incredibly important to their religion, but (from what my girl told me) Mohammed didn't use to live there.

Who built this house and why did they do it? I would think that every mosque is technically a house of Allah, so how come this one became so important to their faith?

I know about the bomb plot to kill hitler during the war, but in the pre war periods he is often shown walking around, driving around, without a great deal of protection. Wouldn't it have been pretty easy for a sniper to take him out? Was this something the nazis were aware of?

For a writing project, I need late a Victorian/early Edwardian character to visit a colonial settlement that was abandoned shortly after construction (think built in 1700 and abandoned in 1715), in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains in New York. Except I'm having a hard time imagining what would be left.

Would buildings still stand? Could any be inhabitable, with a lot of TLC? What other remnants could be seen (stone walls, wells, animal coops, etc.)? Would trails carved through the woods be detectable, or entirely overgrown? Any additional information would be greatly appreciated.

From what I've read online, candles and oil lamps were the two primary tools used for lighting during this time period. Most recourses I come across, however, focus more so on candles, and some even neglect to mention oil lamps altogether. I've encountered others that say candles were more expensive to use than oil lamps, and were thus rarer. Also, candles appear to be inferior to oil lamps in every way that matters--dimmer, short-lasting, more expensive.

I understand that they both used a diverse array of fuels, some of which were superior to others. For candles, what were the properties of the various fuels when burnt? For example, I know that spermaceti burned brighter than tallow, didn't smell nearly as much, and lasted longer. I wish to know the same for the oils used in oil lamps, but if there significant differences, please inform me.

Finally, why did they differ so much in appearance? It seems to me that oil lamps tended to be their own structure, but candles were often held within a lantern. Why weren't oil lamps made smaller and put into lanterns, assuming they are superior in the ways I listed before?

I'm getting to host an upcoming history radio show and would love to not sound too stupid, bland or even ignorant when asking questions. The fun gimmick in this show is that we'll be using a "time machine" to send someone back around 1900 to investigate and hopefully stop the upcoming world war. While not trying to sound too "what if" I want to focus more on the academic and facts. Forget that scenario, we want to get why WWI even started, and I want to ask questions that can bring informative answers.

I'm intimidated at the fact that I get to ask a seasoned history buff.

I've got an accredited mid-aged professor who just became excited about this idea. I've never covered history before, and I just want it to make it a great and informative experience for him, history buffs and non-history audiences alike.

What are some awesome questions I can ask him? E.g., I'll start with one, which emerging nation was the catalyst for WWI?

Edit: It gets tricky now because while we can touch on big political/familial hierarchies, we just don't want to focus on that because there are obviously awesome historiography accounts. The question is, what else?

How did they prevent pregnancy pre contraception and the spread of STDs. I know people had used intestinal tracts as condoms and such but was there methods the workers or even women in general could take to lessen the chances of unwanted pregnancy or disease ?

Resubmitted the question with a more clear and better worded title.

Constantinople was closing to a near end from its most aggressive neighbor in the east. In Constantinople, it was(Or still is?) the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There must have been some form of religious political power it symbolized or represented to all of Europe and even to the Vatican in Rome.

​

Why wasn't the European Monarchs so eager and focused into preventing the collapsed of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Was Rome more important to them then Constantinople?

One of the main reasons an amphibious invasion of Britain was near impossible was because the German navy could not contend with the British navy and provide a large enough landing ground and secure supply chain. Was there any reason why German high command didn't employ German U boats to sink British destroyers and other battleships to weaken the royal navy?