I'm assuming that nothing untoward actually happened, so I'm mainly interested in whether either of them put any procedures or rules in place to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. I'd also be interested in whether they shared their personal thoughts about dealing with their birth countries.

EDIT: I am aware that neither of their birth countries existed as such at the time they were Secretary of State. I am talking about the countries that contained the regions of their birth, West Germany and the Czech Republic, respectively.

I'm writing an essay on courtly love at the moment, and i'm really confused by some of the sources i found. Most authors write about it purely as if it were a literary tradition only, others seem to assume it had at least some basis in reality. I cannot find any sources that deal with this question, apart from a short paragraph on wikepedia. The paragraph denies the existence of any evidence, but then why do so many authors seem to assume the opposite?

Hi

Whould you consider ancient texts such Tacitus : Agricola and Germania, to be a primary or secondary source ?

I would like get a better understanding about what historians and people in the academia understand about the historic accounts of the Old Testament. What was the origin of the Jewish settlement is Judea? Who really wrote the books of Genesis, Numbers, etc? When were they written? What has been proven and what has been disproven by other historical sources?

Can you guys recommend me some books, podcast, online courses, blog posts, etc, on that subject?

Get lots of conflicting articles whenever I search this on google, hoping someone can clear it up. Thanks!

My Friend thinks that Tamil Kings built the Angkor Wat. What do Reddit's finest have to say about that?

So well, the title explains my question, I'm from Milan and in school they also taught us this, but they never explained why. I don't think the city and its vicinity was much better than other European cities, and it is not on the top of a mountain or something similar, but at the very centre of a flat land. So what could be the causes? Thanks in advance.

As the title states, my Social Studies teacher has said some things which contradict what I have learned before. I did some research, but I wanted to ask experts. The three statements(so far) are below, and why I think she was wrong. (We're currently learning about the Roman Republic)

1. A Tribune of the Plebs was only able to veto the actions of a Consul. I did some research and found that in around 200 BC, a Tribune of the Plebs vetoed all actions of the government and brought it to a halt.

2. The Senate were only advisors to the consuls. This one I'm very certain isn't true. In many places, it says the Senate had control over Rome's finances.

3. The Etruscans weren't from the modern day province of Tuscany(or around that area). This one I'm less sure about, since the only reason I have is that I overlayed a map of the Etruscans territory over a map of the Italian provinces.

Thanks, and I'll update the post if anything else comes up in class today.

(Given that 100 years feels more "neat.)

In my head, I have the idea that other examples of these 99 year leases. Is this accurate?

Additionally, the only knowledge I could dredge to the task was that in Medieval English Law, a year and a day was used in place of a year because it gave a specific date, disallowing the vaguery that "a year" might bring.

I live just outside of a town called Kington, about a half-mile from Offa's Dyke and about a mile from the 'real Welsh border in England. The area I live in is considered part of 'the Marches' - Where local lords were given slight autonomy, in exchange for patrolling the border.

Would it have been particularly different or troublesome living in this area during the reign of the Anglo-Saxons, due to the very very close proximity the Welsh towns and ultimately the Kingdom of Powys, owing to of course the long-held hostilities between England and Wales?

How trustworthy exactly all these old records sifted thru by historians? Who recorded them? Are they credible? Even the now modern societies still deals with lots of information falsification in national governments let alone regional ones, corporations let alone small ones albeit increasing intellectual demands of general public plus so many investigative journalists. I mean the whole of history, how to be sure there are no manipulation of data, negligence/incompetence of these whole history gigs. And not mentioning frequent revisions & reinterpretations of history. Are there any acceptable safeguards & what are they? Sorry for sounding childish plus making so many assertions. These are just random thoughts.

I'm watching Gangs of New York again and I was curious about the right wing xenophobic rhetoric in the movie. After reading a couple Wikipedia articles I came across the Know Nothing party which seems like one of the earliest Nationalist-Nativist movements in America. I was wondering if there had always been ultra nationalist sentiment in the United States since it's formation and what kind of preexisting ideologies may have helped bring about the nativist sentiment outside of resentment for immigrants. What does the evolution of American nationalism look like before and up to the Know Nothing party of the 1800s and how did it evolve into the nationalism we see today with Trump?

Also I read that much of the resentment against Catholics was the belief that Pope Pius IX played a role in stopping the nationalist revolutions of 1848. I had always learned that the nationalist movements of that era were focused on sovereignty rather than nativism and xenophobia but was there actually an element of that in the revolutions of 1848 and what does the relationship between the European nationalist movements and American nationalist movements look like at this time?

Landsknecht has always been depicted wearing if not breastplate, no armor at all. Though their strength is in their speed that comes with their size and formation, individually they are at risk of quick death without armor protecting parts of their body. So how do they cover this shortcoming? Do they rely solely on their attacking capabilities? Were their formations the only protection they could rely on? Did their extravagant clothing add some layer of protection?

My history teacher once said that Spain was the only place in Europe that was spared of the bubonic plague, because the Muslims came over to Spain and brought their tradition of washing up all the time. So then the Spanish also started having better hygiene which helped them. Is that true?

So, this sub has taught me an amazing amount not just with the answers to my questions but the answers and questions of others. It's the raw answers, the way they're answered and whence those answers come. It's amazing.

The problem I have is when should we stop asking questions and commit to researching the answers to these things ourselves if we one day hope to contribute to this sub ourselves?

Should those with theoretically the luxury of free time, spare money and mental free space to research these answers feel guilty for asking others to take the time to spoonfeed them the specific "what they want to know?"

Is not having access to journals or the like through an instituition an excuse?

Sorry for a long winded meta question but it is I thinj worth asking if the mods or the sub itself have an opinion on a "cut-off."

Of course I feel this only applies to a person's specific specialty and asking questions wholly unrelated to such I feel is always fine.

I have noticed after watching numerous Korean Dramas, and some Historical ones as well, that they often referred or take place during the Joseon and Goryeo eras/dynasties than any other eras during Korea's Ancient history.

Why were these two eras singled out by the people of Korean for such dramas to take place in? Are there other eras that are just as famous as these two? What makes these two dynasties/eras so special in the eyes of the Korean?