I am very fortunate to be meeting with a Jew who survived the 2nd world war however, I am unable to come up with questions to ask such a relic. I really would not want to waste this opportunity so I came to the most educated subreddit I know

It blows my mind that two of the biggest moments for Western world culture happened in a single generation. Is there anything that may account for this?

Currently, I'm writing a story that has a setting/backdrop similar to the Crusades, but is fictitious and set in a secondary world. Just today, I was trying to write a part of this story that would detail the daily life of the crusaders/knights, but it suddenly dawned on me that I knew nothing about the real-life crusaders' life during the historical Crusades, and therefore couldn't write something that felt authentic. And so, I had to halt my writing and research this particular subject.

I should clarify my question a bit. What I mean by daily life is, how did the crusaders go about their day while they were waging a Crusade? What did they do before they reached their intended destination (in other words, while traveling)? What was the role of every crusader involved (and were there possibly non-crusader individuals involved with the Crusades)? And on a similar note as the last question, what were the roles of every crusader while a battle or siege was happening?

I would be much obliged to anyone who answers these questions, as I myself didn't find much while researching.

I was researching castles in Britain, and it seems like all of the castles were built after the Norman conquest. Are there any exceptions? We’re they just fighting in wooden forts until the Normans came?

Good evening, everybody. I'm looking for a book or a collection analyzing the american war of independence. I'm looking for something complete, military science almost, more inclined to narrating the navy building and battles, or army advances and retreats.

I apologize for any mispelling, English is not my first language.

From my limited reading about various groups of Native Americans, it seems that many European accounts of this-or-that group being described as cannibals was almost always second-or-third hand, something that came from that group's neighbors rather than something explorers and colonists witnessed directly. Is this accurate from what we know? Was it common for indigenious peoples to accuse their enemies or rivals as cannibals?

Did the union conduct any naval invasions on the confederacy? I know we had a blockade on the confederates, so if there weren’t any naval invasions, why not?

Hello, historians. I realize this is a very specific question but I hope you can give me some light on the matter. I'm a literature student, more specifically a student of German literature. For a college paper I'm to analyse a Kurzgeschichte, a type of short story very predominant in the post ww2 time. I chose "Das Eiserne Kreuz" (the iron cross) by Heiner Müller. It's an interesting story if you feel like a short read. Case and point, I was wondering something about the positioning in which the iron cross was worn. In the story, the man, who fought in ww1, wears an iron cross in his lapel ("only on special occasions", the story says). Being a literature student, I of course try to find symbolism wherever it could be hidden, and I was wondering if there was any type of specific symbolism to this particular place as far as wearing the iron cross goes. Also, I know the symbolism of the iron cross itself as bravery and courage, but is there anything else? Thanks!

Where and how differently (to their Orthodox converted neighbors) did the last old practicing Slavic Pagans live? I came across a few sources stating that up until the 16th century sporadic agrarian communities still worshiped the old Slavic Deities as the Eastern Orthodox Church (in Russia) wasn't capable / interested in enforcing their theology on far away districts / unimportant places, what changed to get the church to actively convert these last communities, or did they die out on their own?

Before the Battle of Manzikert Antioch was part of the Eastern Roman Empire, but the rest of the Levant is a different story. If the oath was referring to all former Roman territories the areas that the Crusaders would be obligated to return would stretch all the way to the southern parts of Egypt. The Crusaders did not care about the oath very much, and Antioch was not returned, instead, Bohemond of Taranto founded the Principality of Antioch. Was Constantinople still interested in the Levant? Did Emperor Alexios have any way to enforce this oath?

Antioch can be more directly tied to the oath since it was recently controlled by the Eastern Romans, and John II forced the Principality to become a vassal state a few decades after the Crusade. I'm more interested in the territories which hadn't been Roman for centuries.

A cursory examination of online resources seem to indicate that the claim that the story of Prince Albert adopting this novelty is dubious and possibly apocryphal.

How did the style of piercing on the penis become ascribed to him? And on a related note, what were the historical antecedents of the fashion of genital piercing in certain western subcultures?

I heard somewhere that before WWI, war was held as a necessity if life, and even earlier back was seen as a good thing because of the determination to win and what you could take when you won. I don't know if I can believe that we were monolithic in that because I imagine not everyone would get the winnings so to speak, but at the same time we are primates, and primates generally seem to have some innate aggression and even take brutality to a whole new level. So I figured I'd ask you guys because I'm not sure.

I mean, from what I heard at school, they pretty much acted like gangs that mugged passerby britishmen. My memory could be wrong tho.

Whenever we hear about earlier times, it always seems like all social constructs are extremely puritain to the point two people looking at each other for too long would cause rumours about a girl's honor. Feels like one couldn't really fall in love, or have a conversation with another person of the opposite sex without it seeming like someone was being too daring.

​

Things go to the point that it seems unthinkable that a married woman would have male friends outside her family, let alone a young maid. Then how it is possible that people would actually get to know each other, desire each other, love each other, when they basically only had no chance to sit down by themselves and actually have a conversation to know each other until marriage, which could or not be with someone they had no compatibility with?

I'm doing a research project on the matter and am currently trying to get a good overview of the matter. I've already plumbed the footnotes of wikipedia and am looking for other good sources for my paper. Any that you guys can recommend?

If we take all the religious noise and dogma out of the equation, we have as follows.

The local Jewish authorities condemn this guy Jesus Christ for blasphemy. They petition the Roman authority to take action.

However from the point of view of the Roman government the Rabbinical allegations alone would hold no weight in Roman law. Yet is found guilty in Pilate's court. So what did Jesus do wrong in the Roman perspective?

PS: Just so we don't get off on the wrong foot. I am an atheist. I just consider Jesus an ordinary guy who had a lot to say about himself.

Was he? Did he collude with the communists to abolish the government under Marcos leadership?