Is it denying the evidences or historians are debating?

If a king got two twin sons, how would he decide which one will succeed him? Would they arrange son power sharing agreement or maybe just pick one son and name him heir?

In Robert Kett's Petition of 1549, there's an article which reads:

We pray that no man under the degree of a knight or esquire keep a dove house, except it hath been of an old ancient custom.

What kind of dove house are the rebels referring to here? Is it actual house for doves or have I completely misunderstood something? Also, if it is an actual dove house, why would you need to be a knight or esquire to keep one? And what kind of people kept them as an ancient custom?

Not native speaker so apologies if I’m unclear, also Sorry if it’s a dumb question

how do we separate what people used to see as fiction from what they might have truly believed at some point when we talk about ancient egyptians / greek mythology /ancient testament ? Thanks in advance

From the Wikipedia, the Nigerians were supported by: United Kingdom, Soviet Union, United States, Canada, Israel, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Senegal, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Niger, Algeria, Syria, and Saudi Arabia,

the Biafrans were supported by: France, China, West Germany, Israel, Portugal, Spain, the Holy See, South Africa, Rhodesia, Haiti, Gabon, Ivory Coast, and Tanzania

But why?

Why were the US and the USSR on the same side?

Why was Israel supporting both sides?

Why was the Holy See even involved at all?

I never understood why would the Italians overthrow the government that lead them to victory in WW1 so soon or why even overthrow it at all.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I've heard wehraboos claim that the Italian failures in Africa and Greece are the reason Barbarossa didn't succeed. The argument is that the Germans had to use forces meant for Russian campaign to patch Italian failures, which delayed Barbarossa by critical months (leading to winter fighting).

In my mind this doesn't add up - if the Germans had attacked several months earlier, hadn't they been stuck in the spring mud - but what is the scholarly view on the matter?

While doing research for a a piece that I'm writing on, I learned that cannons weren't normally kept on the upper decks as they proved to be a tripping hazard and could potentially sink the ship if cannons are put there. I'm curious if there is any legitimacy to this. If so, then where would the cannons be kept? Just the Gun Deck? Would there be multiple gun decks then on bigger ships?

Having a country in two parts with another much bigger country in the middle seems idiotic (not to mention big cultural differences). Anyone could see that eventually East Pakistan would want independence. Why were the two not different countries from the beginning?

I own a fairly old Encyclopedia on Mythology: The New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology.

It calls Norsemen Mythology “Teutonic Mythology.”

Wasn’t the Teutonic Knights Christian warriors and the beginnings of Prussia.

[deleted]

My Maltese grandfather once told me that after Leningrad, Malta was bombed more than anywhere else during the Second World War, and I'm curious how accurate this statement might be. As a young soldier during the war, he would have had first-hand experience of the bombing, but I'm not sure how he came across this fact and haven't found any evidence for or against it.

If there is any basis for this claim, how is this being measured?

• number of bombs dropped
• mass of bombs dropped
• most sorties
• days of bombing
• something else

I should also add that it might be unfair to compare the amount of bombing over a city to an entire country, but from what I can tell the area of Malta is smaller than Leningrad oblast was at the time, so it's not totally unreasonable.

This was a somewhat random thought that came from a conversation at work about PTSD in soldiers returning from Afghanistan or Iraq. I've seen stuff relating to combat stress, shell shock, of PTSD in soldiers who fought in the Middle East, Vietnam, Korea, the world wars, and even some Napoleonic wars. However, I've never seen anything mention how soldiers during ancient or medieval periods would mentally handle the horrors of war. Was this simply due to limited ability to document such things or was the brutality of the time periods just considered normal and people became numb? It would just seem that conflicts that may involve battles were thousands of men would kill each other with spears, swords, and arrows would affect the mental health of those lucky enough to survive.