I was recentley told that my Great-Grandfather was stationed in Japan between 1933 and 1938 but couldn't find any information on it other than spies sent against the Soviets. Would anyone know about this?

Did jomsviking troops were made of purely Danish warriors, or were there some Slavic woriors too?

Title, will I lose my English lands ? Would it be different if I was the King's younger brother ? What happens when war breaks out between my Kingdom and England ?

I tried researching this but it seemed a bit confusing the further I got into it. After about an hour and a half browsing Wikipedia I have come up with 5 main questions:

• Is a house just another term for “family?”
• Can anyone decide to create a house? (Of course it doesn’t become royal until it gains power)
• Does a house need to control territory or have authority as a family to be considered a house? (Or can you have one even with no authority?)
• When a house is founded can it be named whatever the founder(s) want(s)?
• Also when a house is founded, does it only include those such as children and siblings of the founder(s), and not previous generations like parents? How distant did you have to be of a relative to be not considered a part of the house?

These are just some things I’m curious about. To me it seems like anyone could just say, “Today I’m going to create the House of _______,” and then create their own escutcheon and coat of arms (at least in the US where there is no heraldic authority). Of course that house would have no recognition nor authority unless a member of it became ruler of America or some sort of territory.

Although all are descendants of the same slave trade, said to originate in Africa, why do Black people from Haiti, Jamaica, Barbados, & many other islands from the Caribbean & West Indies including Costa Rica, Panama, etc.. speak a patois or creole that incorporates Congolese or West African dialects but no African linguistic attributes exist for Black people in America?

We know the French slavers, especially in Haiti, were amongst the most strict and brutal. All slavers followed the same code noir or black codes, how did native languages persist & survive everywhere but America?

Can be in whatever country, or an international approach

Much like today's Chanel or Gucci, did ancient people have any products made by a certain person or group that were branded? I know the rich used gold and jewelry to show off, but did anyone say "Yeah, I like all of these things, but I think this person/group does it better. It's cool to have their logo on my stuff."?

In popular media , Japanese soldiers are shown to use their swords for close combat. Was this a common occurrence? Were soldiers of the era familiar in their use? Did the japanese army issue them or where they personal weapons?

Are there any battles of note which involve a Japanese soldier using his sword to great effect during the war?

I was recently in a discussion with someone who absolutely insisted that the Icelandic eddas (the Prose Edda and Poetic Edda) are considered to be secondary sources since they started off as an oral tradition prior to their earliest written recording. Furthermore, they argued that because it wasn't written down until the 13th century by a Christian, that it further invalidates them being considered as primary sources. Their argument was that "It is a primary source of skaldic poetry in Thirteenth-century and a secondary source of Norse myth."

I personally disagree. I feel that they are primary sources because they are earliest known written records of the content which they reveal.

What say ye?

Coming from the UK we have our share of strange historical customs, but they are I think mostly ‘ornamental’ and would not prevent say parliament proposing or changing a law, or dictating public debate. Anything we have close to a constitution is essentially always open to change, and most people wouldn’t care if it did.

This seems to be different in the US, with the invoking of amendments written hundreds of years ago as basically a full stop in arguments. This is most obvious with gun control but other areas as well.

Is this entirely historical/consistent or is it a modern phenomenon, and even artificially engineered by political groups?

The following would be what I would actually answer to him, but after some research on my side, I didn't think that I would told the right answer, and there is some inaccuracy, can you help me to mend this? What I actually find: "baguette is what pasta for Italians, rice for Chinese, corn for Mexican, potato for Irish or beer for German, it's a daily consummer goods for French. Then for historical reasons, poor French peasants before industrial revolution need generally something that last for several days and have some pretty good nutrition value. So that gives birth of a 20 inches round bread that have the outside crusted and look like a 20 inches large bowl, poor French peasants pour vegetables soup inside of this kind of bowl (yes they even not have money to buy a bowl under French feudality most of times) to soften the bread. That kind of "tradition" last until Napoleon, where armies are unified with industrial equipment, as soldiers get metal bowl to get their soup, there is no more needing of bread bowl, so they need get some kind of bread that also last several days but in a long shape to match the idea of easy to transport by soldiers within their bags, so that gives baguette, nowadays baguette become way more soften that before as the need of transportation for several days and is no more a soldier's "equipment". But it last until now and won't be disappeare for a long time is that during the industrial revolution, French factory managers gives also this kind of food to workers. It names baguette only for its shape, there is many kind of French bread that is still calling "pain" (bread) by French." But the problem is that there is some document of the Paris metro that states baguette was invented by a engineer that is leading the constructing site of the metro to prevent workers bringing knife inside the site. Which one is more appropriate?

I think it’s interesting that Australian Aboriginals didn’t develop advanced cultures and civilizations when every other continent that has been inhabited has, especially since cultures such as those in Indonesia and the pacific islands were only a few hundred miles away, and at times even traded with eachother, why is it even when coming in contact with more advanced peoples from Indonesia through trade, wasnt there a advanced Australian civilization

I’ve always been fascinated with World War Two in particular as well as others parts of history but that’s what I have the most interest in, so I have a question was the Japanese internment in World War Two justified? I personally think it was due to a risk of spying and to help keep Japanese people from mob violence which I see as a real possibility post Pearl Harbor, the argument I’ve heard is that it was racist, so I’m curious of the opinions of professionals given the politics of the time was the Japanese internment during World War Two justified?

I've heard that many Communist regimes descriminated against certain groups despite wanting equality and that Mark himself was an anti-semite. Is this true?

Would it have been common to have a great hunt, with fresh meat often on the menu? Or would it be a cause for a feast if some incredible game was caught?

I'm also wondering if indeed they "feasted" and celebrated, if this would be followed by what we consider now a "food coma," or some kind of deep sleep.

​

Thanks!