I’m guessing no, since I’ve always heard it prefaced with, “according to legend,” but I just wanted to know how accurate this is

In free market economies, banks set deposit and lending rates based on competitive market forces (e.g. balance sheet considerations, capital considerations, competition, cost of capital from other sources, etc.). How did this work behind the Iron Curtain?

Was it to do with the Roman Empire being vastly wealthy and prosperous for its time or the architecture used by the Romans or something entirely different?

Its technically a mythological question but I am looking for a accurate source so hopefully any of you might be more accurate.

The golden apple incident happened at Peleus/Thetis wedding. The judging of Paris takes place sometime after and Helen was elope-napped by paris sometime after that. Is there any record in any of the fragmented pieces of the Cypria or a later piece that gives a time frame on it? While I can determine that the Oath of Tyndareus took place about 10 years before the war as that's the age of Menelaus and Helen's daughter, I cant figure out a timeline that let's Achilles be old enough to go to war, as well as having an event from his parents wedding being the direct cause of the war. I know that events pijnt to him being present for the whole conflict and so the war should have taken place 14 years or so after the wedding. So I am trying to determine if this missing decade and change was between the wedding and the Judgement of Paris, or the Judgement of Paris and the Elope-napping of Helen. I know it's a long shot but if anyone has something that might help me work out the timeline that be awesome

Did the founders intend for the constitution to be a living document? Given how the US's needs and interests have changed over time, is it necessary to interpret it as a living document or are we bounded by their original intent?

We talked about this in my AP Gov class a bit, but I want to know if there are any historical documents which back whether or not it's meant to be a living document. Have any of the founders written anything about this? Are there any differences in opinions among them? If so, what documents should I look at?

It's marketed as a "Docu-Drama" and I'm particularly interested in the historical accuracy of the "Drama" parts of the show. In the reenactment scenes: how authentic are the relationships and plot points in the show? Did Sultan Mehmed II really have a dream / vision from God telling him to take Constantinople or was he more "grounded" in his motivations for taking the city? Was he a self-styled prophet or an Alexander the Great fanboy who drummed out a tribute album on the walls of Constantinople?

For example, Augustus's titles and attempts at claiming to be a princeps and the republic was still in place could plausibly be read in isolation as a republican system, and if he died soon after his seizure of power and the system went to something more resembling the republican system of politics, it might be remembered merely as a weird time with civil wars, dictators, and the like, but still in a system without a true king. When was an imperial system engrained strongly enough in Rome that even a return to a republican form of government in practice couldn't save it from being viewed in modern times as an imperial monarchy?

I'm talking about the 11th to 15th Century in small towns of England, France or Italy.

I used to think that this tradition had not changed all that much, but I've recently read some interesting facts about what this was like and was hoping someone could elaborate on the matter. Here's some "facts" I learned.

• Parish priests could be illiterate or extremely incompetent.
• The priest mostly had to speak in latin, which nobody understood.
• Churches rarely had access to scripture, and a full bible was unheard of.
• Attending was pretty much mandatory for everyone.
• Local news and other services would be provided.
• Sin confessions and penance were fully public.

So I'm wondering, given the above, how this wasn't a total disaster? Can't imagine how priests would even manage or everyone didn't fall asleep.

I read online somewhere (Can't remember where sorry!) that the Nazis attempted to destroy evidence of the Treblinka and Sobibor death camps. I am a bit confused why they did this because surely from a Nazi perspective, the genocide of the "undesirables" would be an achievement they were proud of.

As per the title, how did the British army settle on red as a uniform, in both senses, colour for the soldiery?

As an aside, did other nations have, and how did they come by, specifically recognisable colour schemes?

The Netflix series "Rise of Empires: Ottomans" suggests that he was definitely Scottish (even giving him a Scottish accent and style) - and this show is attempting to show an accurate portrayal of events.

However, on researching this, it seems the only evidence of him being Scottish is an unsubstantiated claim by the Historian Steven Runciman. It seems more likely he was German.

Has there been any further evidence to suggest he was actually Scottish?

The West Bank and Gaza were under the control of Jordan and Egypt, respectively, since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. But they were captured by Israel during the Six-Day War, and controlled by Israel ever since. It does not appear then that any Palestinian government was involved in the execution of the Six-Day War.

Did Palestinians organize and fight along with Jordan and Egypt? At that point, was there a meaningful distinction between Palestinians and Egyptians and Jordanians, or did Palestinians still consider themselves occupied, such that Palestinians could disassociate from the Jordanian and Egyptian governments/militaries?

From what I understand, Palestinians were occupied by Jordan and Egypt and then caught in the middle of a war which resulted in them being occupied by Israel. But what is troublesome is that, if the Palestinians had no ability to exercise their right to self determination while occupied by Jordan and Egypt, then is it fair that Israel considers the Palestinians territories to be occupied as the result of a defensive war, which is a grey area in international law, if the Palestinians were not belligerents?

On reading a book about the middle ages in Europe (simply "The Middle Ages" by Joseph Dahmus), I came accross an interesting point involving vassalage. It said that on certain occasions a vassal pledging military service might render service to more than one Lord. If a situation came where these two would fight, the vassal would resolve this issue by siding with the lord most likely to win. That in itself makes for an interesting discussion, but it's not what I wanted to know. My question is whether or not it was a common occurence for local lords in proximity to each other, although both serving the same king, to fight one another. Or, in contrast, is this something that did occur, but not as often is it might seem? How did Europe get out of a pitfall like that?

Edits:

In order to narrow the question down, what I really want to know is at what specific points in medieval feudal history (1000-1300) that this 'feuding' took place. And when I say war, I mean more serious conflicts between lords. This would be a situation where a fair amount of soldiers get involved. It seems reasonable to assume that mere land disputes at the local level would have been commonplace at a time of such decentralization (or maybe I'm wrong?). I should also point out that I mostly have Western Europe in mind; I want to narrow it down there before turning attention to other regions.

My questions stems from the idea of the Star Trek Utopia, where we've automated everything so the only humanity cares about is exploration (paraphrasing big time here).

With the recent 're' launch of the US Space Force, I got to comparing the goal of US Space Force vs the Starfleet Command (you know the whole logo comparison fiasco).

How influential is/was money during the early days of exploration (say exploring earth). Since our reality involves eventually having a lot of jobs automated (therefor less people working...so universal income?), could we become space explorers without the monetary motivation?

And that lead me to the title question.

It's well known that throughout the Winter War, the Soviet Union had air and naval superiority over Finland, so why didn't they just send paratroopers or send a naval invasion to capture Helsinki or another major city and then open up a second front which would surely win them the war in a much more timely and efficient manner, rather than sacrificing tens of thousands of men to break through the Mannerheim Line?