I find it hard to believe that elections would go smoothly for almost a thousand years. Are there any known surviving results (or discussions of results)?

Reading the book it doesn’t grant him a shred of positive light, and I’ve heard many historians say it misuses sources and is rather biased. What is the general consensus and why?

I can understand why they may have had reservations about bombing Auschwitz or the rail lines leading to it as there were inmates there that they wanted to avoid killing and it wasn't just a death camp, but what about say Treblinka which was a pure killing factory? Were they unaware of what was happening there?

What are some good book recommendations that talk about the reality of Wehrmacht's complicity in war crimes?

From lighter things like Washington chopping down a cherry tree, to more significant things like Columbus landing in America and being nice to natives, that everyone believed the world was flat, that Rosa Parks was the first African American to not move from her bus and she just did it because her feet hurt.

There are many of these fake histories that are taught, only to be retaught later with the more accurate version (sometimes not at all). Why teach the wrong version in the first place?

Many non-Western nations and empires seem to be named after the dynasty that founded the state, but this is not how many Western nations are named. For example, we don't refer to Roman Empire as the Augustinian/Justinian Empire or England as the nation of Tudors; however, we routinely refer to non-Western empires such as the Ottoman, Qing/Ming, or Ayyubid by the dynasty.=

How useful was Aetius as a hostage to Alaric? Did Honorius or Stilicho care that Alaric had taken him? Why did Alaric need to give up the hostage to the Huns and why did they look after the Roman boy? Could this have caused resentment towards the Visigoths when Aetius went to war with them after becoming Emperor?

Exactly as the title, who decided to use this new way of recording the passing years? Why? What year was it before the new change?

Horses have been an integral part of human military for thousands of years, carrying Warriors into battle and what not.

So how come that, despite these close ties to a stereotypical "manly" job, horses these days are depicted as a thing mainly for girls, from toys to tv shows? When did this change occur, if there even really was one.

My grandpa served in WWII and like many it was generally impossible to get details out of him. Below is one of the few things he said about it. Would it be possible to determine what regiment he served in based on this description?

"I was drafted into the army.  I spent four months in Georgia taking basic training in the middle of summer.    I came home [to Wisconsin] for a couple of weeks and I went to Fort Mead, Maryland and then shipped out from Fort Mead, Maryland and I was sick seventeen days going across the ocean.  Three weeks later we landed in Liverpool to South Hampton and then to France.  I went right up to the front lines.  I was a PFC in the infantry andI walked all the way across France and Germany and I ended up in Munich.  

I was in a fox hole for 45 days and then we started moving after it had 45th Division.  They had been all the way down to Italy.  I came home on delay en route and Norm Bone was home after 3 years being there.  I listened to him talk. And when I got over there.  Here he came, in the same outfit.  

I didn’t have enough points to get out and went to Texas.  The 45th was disbanded in Texas and I was transferred to the 2nd Division and we went to San Francisco for an Army Day parade.  Then we went to Ft. Lewis Washington and I was taking jungle training up there when I got enough points to be discharged.

Pretty much in Germany and France."

From what I've read online, women during Victorian times used their fans to relay secret messages. For example, according to an article in Sothebys, a dropped fan signaled that the woman only wanted to be friends with a man.

I've read that the 'language' was originally made as a marketing stunt to promote sales of fans. What I'm curious about is - do we have real-life accounts of ladies using their fans to communicate messages? Was communicating with a fan during balls really prevalent? Or was it more of a passing fad that everyone bought into but never really used in reality?

We're often told that the history of Henry VIII is that of a tyrant who seceded from the catholic church because of his love affairs. It is highly unlikely that such a process would be motivated only by his romantic whims, especially when he could have easily had lovers, as did many other kings. Were there political reasons to distance England from the Church?

By Moldovans I mean people of the current country of Moldova and Moldavians, from the historical region which is now also part of Romania.

The Mongols founded a country called "The Golden Horde" around Moldova, so don't Moldovans have Mongol blood in them?

I know Wallachia is made up of Thracians and Illyrians.

Transylvania is said to be populated by Dacians who were later Romanized but that is disputed, last I read somewhere.

People from the country of present-day Hungary are mostly descended from Slavs and Avars. The Hun connection is most prominent in the Szekelys, not in today's Hungary last time I read.

What happened to them after being exiled? I think they had to change their surnames, what surnames did they chose? We know their descendents?

If Vikings believed they had to die in battle, were there stories or rumours of vikings who deliberately died in battle

To preface, this isn't a homework help question I swear, but I have been assigned a Historiography Essay for my uni course and am having trouble understanding what to do. The instructions given are like "identify themes, debates, arguments among historians", and so forth. I have been doing reading and have been finding some good debate, but what is intimidating me is how to actually comment on it. In normal reports I can comment on historiography but I feel like I can't write a full report on historiography alone. I understand that Historiography is an important part of History and I will need to be better at this for writing my dissertation. Any advice on how to tackle Historiography?

I just picked up a work by Herder and he uses italics for practically every other word. I have noticed this in other sources I have read, usually from around the 18th-19th centuries and I can't understand why certain words are stressed. I realise that it is probably for emphasis but I can't tell why he is emphasising words so frequently. Take this sentence: "One gets closer and closer to the fortunate climate where one human couple began spinning the thread -- under the mildest influences of the creating Providence, with the aid of a most facilitating fate all around ..." etc. He is obviously writing for an intelligent audience yet his use of italics makes it read like a children's book. I think if I knew why this convention existed it might make it easier to get through what is already a very confusing work.

Republican polities, in their broadest sense of an executive power being either elected or co-opted rather than taking its legitimacy essentially from dynastic virtue , can be found trough European history in various forms, not necessarily challenging aristocratic or royal power, during Antiquity and the Middle-Ages.Not being just pragmatical or ad hoc resolution, they were justified and supported by intellectual considerations (laws, constitutions, political philosophy, etc.)

What would be comparable to Mediterranean civic polities such as Greek, Carthaginian, Gaul or Roman ancient states or to medieval municipal republics, in Eastern Asian history?How did they led to a republican political philosophies from their own cultural background? How did these differed, or at the contrary were similar to what existed in Europe?

EDIT : Furthermore, were the Indian republican polities an important influence there?

I’m curious as there’s surprisingly little information available on this online.

I was working on a period piece about Gallipoli in which a character is stabbed by a bayonet. Would this have been an instant kill or are there actual cases of people surviving being run through with a bayonet or sword back then?

Looking at the text of Matthew 6:9-13, it seems as though some translations of the gospel include "for thine is the kingdom, etc" and some do not. Is this a difference in manuscripts, or just doctrine generally? And why?