In "The Crusades: A Reader" by S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt, a book containing multiple primary sources relating to the Crusades, one document is a letter from a 4th woman named Etheria who went on pilgrimage from Spain to what is now the Middle East. In this document, Etheria makes multiple references to a place called Hisauri and people called the Hisauri. I cannot find any other sources referring to this nation (I assume it's a nation or kingdom of sorts) or these people except for Etheria's letter; does anyone know who the Hisauri were and where Hisauria was? The letter mentions the cities of Tarsus and Seleucia as part of Hisauri, which implies that Hisauria extends or at least includes parts of modern day Turkey and Iraq.

The battles and facts about French Army in ww1 are widely known and are the main focus of the war. But what did the French navy do in WW1 ? They were not present in the north to help their British allies with the German High sea fleet ?

Have i even committed a crime? If so, what is my punishment?

In Mark Kurlansky's book, Paper, he talks about the "technological fallacy". This is the idea that people think a technological change like the invention or re-invention of paper or printing press caused the increased spread of new ideas. Instead, Kurlansky notes that an increased need for a way to quickly spread ideas played an important role in causing a technology to take off. Is this an idea that exists and has a name among professional historians? Are there other canonical examples of the fallacy?

I would like to divide my question into two parts: Firstly, did slavery still continue for some years after 1865? I would imagine it did not disappear overnight and in some places where the law was corrupt or otherwise couldn’t reach, slavery still carried on for a while.

Secondly, how did they integrate into society now as free men? Did former slave owners continue to employ them, but now for a salary? Do we see a migration into urban areas in this time?

Thank You for Your answers.

I’d be interested to hear of personal accounts, as well as specific example of trauma being talked or sympathetically (as in, thinking of the traumatized person humanly, not possessed by demons)

This is a bit of a broad question, but it's one that woke me up last night:

Where did weeks come from and how did everyone end up agreeing on them?

Obviously, different cultures use different calendars, and obviously different cultures count the years differently. But it just seems odd that, at least in western Eurasia, everyone would be so well-agreed as to what day of the week it was and how many days a week should be. Like even if they called it different things, it's interesting that Saturday simply is Saturday, from England to Iran.

I understand that the Romans established a lot of European dating conventions, but it is also obvious this is something that existed long before the Roman Empire. I also understand the week is (very roughly) based on the phases of the moon, but did every culture agree that this was the most obvious way to divide time?

Or am I completely off-base here and the days of the week weren't consistent between cultures before modern times?

During the heat of battle, how did entire platoons and brigades get info, know where the enemy was, and what to do?

This question was supposed to go in the “explain like I’m five” subreddit. Forgot to remove the subreddit from the title. ;) Fits better here.

A lot of people,especially on the internet, preach about how America lost the war of 1812. Most people cite Britain burning down the White House as evidence. However when I read deeper into it it seems like America won. The war of 1812 is typically referred to as “America’s second war for independence”. We achieved our goals of stopping British impressment and re-established American independence. Further more we won a stunning victory at the Battle of New Orleans. With all of this,I don’t understand why people say America lost?

Far too often, accounts of the campaigns by the US against the indigenous peoples of the West seems to demonstrate the ability of the colonizing forces to exploit cleavages between the nations and play them off of each other. It always seems like in any given campaign against some nation there are always members of some other nation with the Army, serving as scouts; or else one group willing to make peace (for a time at least) with the understanding that the Army will then go through peacefully to attack some other people.

But how frequent was the opposite true? Were there many credible attempts at creating pan-native unity to present more of a united front? I know of at least one example, the Battle of Little Big Horn including Lakota, Cheyenne, and I believe several other nations as well (although of course, Native scouts were in the American force there too...), but is this the lone exception, or reflective of larger trends which are less well known?

Or from an opposive side of view, im guessing having the high nobility against at that moment, some document that refers to him must be. Im trying to see if any perspectiva from Jesús was recorded from that era beside the bible biased we generally know

I've heard the definition of slave society is one in which slavery is not just legal, but the entire structure of the society is based and defined around the concept of slavery and that by the 1830s the Southern states were undeniably a slave society, however do the southern states in 18th century also fit this definition? Or was it the mass profitably of cotton and vast expansion of slavery post 1800 that transformed it from a society were slavery was legal to a fully fledged slave society?

Also if they weren’t reactionary, did the incident help Gorbachev promote his reforms in any way at all or did it effect only negatively?

I ask because I'm British myself and keep seeing places celebrate brexit by serving 'traditional' British foods.

It made me wonder why our 'traditional' cuisine is so bland compared to other European countries, considering the access to international ingredients we had? Were our working class poorer than other countries? Our local ingredients less interesting than somewhere like France for example? Is it a hangover of wartime rationing?

Although this plan itself looks very childish, I couldn’t really figure out why armies -especially those consisting of mercenaries- couldn’t/didn’t try to infiltrate into medieval cities and capture them from the inside. It makes sense to think that cities weren’t that big and such entrances would arise suspicion, and armies were not disciplined enough to perform such activities. Yet, I’m more concerned about the defence mechanisms against that and whether an infiltration was even dared back then.

After ww2 The Soviet union managed to create several puppet states, did the soviets ever want to integrate the puppets into the soviet union?