For example with food, transportation/movement, health care, etc. primarily interested in logistics and any spiritual perspectives.

I have this Facebook friend, he's one of the most inteligent persons I have ever seen, he knows a lot of different languages, debates philosophy, politics and lots of topics that from an outside view makes me feel like I'm hella dumb, and he shared this news post which said "Brazilians deny Holocaust in German's Embassy post" (We're Brazilians, by the way), kind of mocking/being sarcastic with the thing, and I commented on his post "Do you completely deny the holocaust or you see it as a exaggerated thing?" to which he replied "Second option. One needs to be very disturbed or out of touch to think that there was no plan of systematically elimination of the jews."

Him and another person further explained that basically it was used by the jews to push their zionist agenda and use this "myth" to silence any anti-zionist critique, saying that most people in the West which supports Israel are commonly guided by this myth. He said that there's this book call The Holocaust Industry (my translation, I don't know if the english is this one) written by a very holocaust survivor descendant telling the whole thing. It made me wonder about the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which I'm Pro-Palestine even though I have never nurtured no anti-semitic feelings.

As I read books and watch shows involving sword fighting, I nearly cringe each time that blade meets blade in a direct blow, thinking about what kind of a notch or burr that must put in the edge. Yet time and time again in these tales, there is a sword (or several) that have served warriors for generations.

I realize what Hollywood (and fiction in general) can do with reality. So, in actuality, just how long were swords likely to serve their owners in battle? Did a sword really become like a loyal friend, or were they often replaced with another sword after heavy battle?

The Romans obviously considered them related people, but even if they were direct descendants, 340 years is a long time. Do we know to what extent their language, material culture, etc. were the same? Did the Romans know, or did they kinda just lump everyone who wore pants, had blonde hair, and lived to their north into one group?

Hi all, I'm a Graduate Student in History and I'm starting to work on what I want my Thesis to be about. I'm still in my first year(second semester) but I'm having trouble coming up with some clear ideas or gaps in Historiography to work on. My chosen area of interest is Medieval European History(after 1100) with particular interest in Magic/Witchcraft/Pagan Survivals, Religious/Philosophical/Intellectual history(they all kinda go together), Military History and to a lesser degree Social History. Obviously I'm not going to be able to combine all these topics but I do want to pick one area and find a topic worth writing about and exploring. I've looked through some of the Historiography and Primary Sources about these topics but I don't really know where to start so I was hoping I could get some specific ideas of what to look at or maybe even some topics you've been interested in and wished someone would write about. Thanks y'all.

How did various continental secular authorities, Protestants and Catholics feel about these events given that England was such a powerhouse at the time?

In the US colonies / early America. Sorry for omitting that from the title.

I'm doing some genealogical research, and my 4th great grandfather, Otis, had his mother's maiden name; however, he was born to her when she was married. In the Massachusetts Compiled Birth, Marriage, and Death records, as well as the birth records by town, only Otis' mother, Abigail, was noted as a parent.

But Abigail was married to a man with a different last name before and after the birth in 1789. And Otis is not named among this man's child elsewhere.

I'm curious what possible reasons could be for this; initially I assumed we had some cousin-loving going on, but with the marriage inclusive of birth years, I'm confused. Could Abigail have been screwing around on her husband? Or maybe a younger sibling had a child out of wedlock?

How much truth was there to Arthurian legend? I know that obviously some of it was fictional but did Arthur and his court actually exist?

As I’ve come to learn was that Hitler had an older brother who ran away due to his abusive father. Did his brother make it to the 30s and see his younger brother’s rise to power or did he die after he ran away?

Was there feudalism like in Europe? I am a Jerusalem-born Frank, would I live more or less the same as my relatives in Paris or would I go to the Hammam and eat falafel (perhaps anachronistic)?

I have seen a lot of conflicting information on this. There's many sources claiming it was rather usual - or at least common as a replacement for meat, as you could just go and fish instead of hunting or slaughtering valuable cattle.

On the other hand, I've also read and heard the opposite - that freshwater fish was rare and valuable, and would usually be saved for the upper class, with there being tight regulations on fishing. "The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England" even goes as far to say that as a peasant, you're more likely to want to sell a fish you've caught for yourself than eat it, because it makes more financial sense.

So what does it ultimately come down to? Was there no common trend in how it was and did it vary hugely depending on the availability of the fish and what regulations the local lords placed on it? Could any regional generalisation be made in that case? Etc.

EDIT: I understand the situation was likely different for fishing communities, so I am more interested on the average inland settlement and regions where fishing wasn't a main source of income

Title. If not, could you link me other titles that you would consider of significant national importance?

Or was he, like Harry Truman seems to have been, of the opinion that Chiang Kai-shek was beyond saving? Or did he just not give the issue much thought?

I heard the Bible was oral history for a long time before it was written. Why was it written? Is there any record of the circumstances?

Hello there!

I'm currently working on a mini-paper about the Battle of Alesia. Seeing as the Bello Gallico doesn't specify a whole lot about which type of equipment, artillery etc was used throughout the battle, I was wondering if any of you know more about this topic.

Thanks in advance

Was it easier to get the bombers to those cities? Were those two cities more important than I think? Were there negative consequences to nuking the Tokyo/Osaka/Kyoto? Hopefully this doesnt brush anyone the wrong way.