The Julian Calendar was created by Julius Caesar and came into effect in 45 BC. We’ve since changed to the Gregorian Calendar, but it’s only days different.

I find it very hard to believe Julius Caesar proclaimed it to be 45 years before the birth of Christ, and that the first 45 years would count down, not up.

So my full question: what was the actual date on say 1/1/45BC at that time? And how can we say we use the Gregorian Calendar when we seem to be 45 years adrift from it?

I was reading midsummer nights dream and in parts of the play a group of laymen are rehearsing a play, none of them seem resistant to having to play the woman's role and one of them even wants to because he says he would be good at it. Maybe it's my country's culture but most modern men would find it controversial or at least not ideal to act like women, and also embarrassing to read all these lovey lines to a man even if they are just acting. Was this not the case in Shakespeare's days? Is this strict idea of masculinity a modern thing?

considering Hawaii wasn't a state until 1959, and it had the same territorial status the Phillippines, why was Pearl Harbor the catalyst for US involvement in WWII?

What happened to the Matildas, Crusaders, M3 Lees, BT-7s after they became obsolete at or around 1943? I know that some were still used in the China, India, Burma theatre or at the Pacific theatre and some were converted to SPAA or SPGs but that doesn't account for all of them. Where did they go?

Before Nazi Germany, was the language considered such an intense and harsh language?

I've been reading the story of Chevalier Bayard, the famous French Knight. There is a particular story of him holding a bridge against a charge of Spanish knights led by a 3ft tall knight who was hunchbacked named Pedro de Pais. He ends up captured. Outside of this story I can find no reference that this guy ever existed despite the story hailing him as a brave and famous knight. In the story the French and Spaniards are on opposite sides of the river Garilliano. Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba commanded the Spaniards.

So, in hungarian, we call the the branch of history that deals with rulers, how long they ruled, what treaties that made, whom they were succeeded by, what wars were closed by what peace agreement, etc, "Politika történelem" which would translate in to "Political history". Would that be the right word for it?

Also, when History is studied through the perspective that is also the purview of another science, like economics, sociology, demographics, we call that a "segédtudomány", which i think translates to "Auxiliary science". For example, in this context and in this perspective, if you study the economy of let's say medieval france, Economics is used in that case as an auxiliary science of history.

Are these the right english terms for the things I described?

I am aware of a debate around whether or not 1932-33 famines in Ukraine and Kazakhstan were acts of genocide perpetrated by the Soviet State, and neither sides absolve the Soviet government from causing or contributing to the starvation.

I am also aware of consensus being that the British caused or contributed to the famine in Ireland. Is there an argument that this was a genocide? If so what are the main points of argument, if no, what are the main reasons why it is not a genocide?

To clarify. The Sengoku Period is often portrayed as a period in which a power vacuum (if such a thing even exists) caused almost a century and half of near constant civil war. That's just the thing, just how constant was it? To the average person that lived through this period, were the scourges of war all that those generations would've ever known? Or was life for a civilian more os less normal if the place they lived wasn't where a specific conflict happened? (I imagine the year of 1560 was pretty miserable for the peasants in the village of Okehazama for example). Did the wars of the Sengoku have any economic and demographic impact on Japan?

Is it possible that the Sengoku Period's "anarchy" may have been overestimated by later sources that lived in post unification periods like the Edo period? Kind of like how Enlightenment thinkers painted the medieval era in Europe as a "Dark Age"? I don't have any specific reason to think this, I guess is just my skepticism at work.

Turns out those were multiple questions, sorry. I had trouble articulating my doubts.

Thank you for your time if you read that.

As the title states, I am curious as to what an "illegal ruse" would be a time of war. I know there are all sorts of rules in war (i.e.-Geneva convention and the like), but I can't for the life of me think of what an "illegal ruse" might be, and why it would be illegal.

It's been a while since I read it and my cataracts are such that reading physical books is a problem, but from memory,

• Italy has elected a Communist government and largely withdrawn from NATO

• India has become a loose confederation of states and is disintegrating

• Angola, Mozambique, Botswana and Zambia have formed an anti-apartheid confederation to threaten South Africa, backed by the Soviets

• Jamaica has gone Communist too and eclipses Cuba as the main Communist country in the Carribbean.

How many of those things were either genuinely possible or at least widely held to be plausible in 1976-77? Or is it all just moving pieces on the board to facilitate the narrative?

Supposedly when Polycarp was burned at the stake his followers " took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold ". There the process of creating relics seems pretty clear. For later religious figures, particularly those who died in less dramatic fashion (Hidegard of Bingen?) were there rules or are there accounts of how to collect and authenticate personal effects, or even body parts? Disputes over who has the true relic -before- it was put in a reliquary? Was it o.k. to open tombs to get at this stuff? I know there is a large literature about the cult of saints and relics, but what little of that I have read seems to focus on the part after the parts were boxed up and certified, as it were. What happened in the period between the death of a future candidate for sainthood and relics ending up in a cathedral or the collection of the Elector of Saxony?

Throughout history, it feels as though the Anglo-sphere’s view of the lands surrounding the Baltic has been understandably shaped by the Viking cultures and the progenitors of the contemporary Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Danish states.

Information on Finland, however, during this ancient and early-Medieval period before the Swedish crusades seems really sparse, and altogether lacking - at least in popular history.

What was Finland like during this broad period, and was it roughly analogous to the Vikings? Did they have a similar culture, did they practice raiding, etc. The Finnic pantheon seems similar to their Norse neighbours, was this due to cultural exchange? What were the events and customs that shaped life for them?

This isn't meant to be a political question—people have been calling countries "it" since long before feminism was a thing. Calling a country "she" in most contexts would draw attention to itself as an odd affectation—it certainly wouldn't go unnoticed. I've been binging history books over the last couple years, and this usage, even in recent books, always jumps out at me.

(Before someone starts making some comment about it being a relic of Anglo-Saxon having had gendered nouns, the Anglo-Saxon land was of neuter gender, not feminine; this argument is often brought up to "explain" ships being called "her", when the Anglo-Saxon sċip was also actually neuter.)

EDIT: Some more examples form books I've read recently:

A Concise History of Germany by Mary Fulbrook (2019):

• "... regularising Germany's relations with her western neighbours ..."
• "... by which Germany was to increase her navy to one-third the strength of the British navy ..."

Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson (1988):

• "... warned that the South might secede if her rights were not protected."
• "... settlement of the Texas boundary dispute in favor of New Mexico with compensation to Texas of $10 million to fund her pre-statehood debt."

A People's History of the German Revolution by William A. Pelz (2018):

• "Bavaria shared her Catholic faith and much of her foreign policy with the Austrian Empire ..."
• "... he wrote bitterly in his diary about England and her allies ..."

1848 by Mike Rapport (2010):

• "France would also not hesitate to protect her neighbours - specifically Switzerland and Italy - in their own attempts to democratise or to unite ..."

Iron Kingdom by Christopher Clark (2007):

• "The interests of the monarchy thus demanded that Vienna abandon her unreliable British ally and sue instead for the friendship of France."
• "... massive Habsburg acquisitions in the Balkans would give Austria the upper hand over her Prussian rival."

Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754–1766 by Fred Anderson (2001)

• "... Pitt’s strategic vision still focused on attacking France’s imperial periphery rather than her armies in Europe ..."
• "... Pitt’s evident determination to strip France of her empire, humble her diplomatically, and in effect dictate the peace terms ..."

I’m referring to after the end of the race to the sea in 1914. Did it go all the way to the Swiss border in the south? Could you watch combat on the Swiss side of the border with no threat to your life? And on the Belgian side, did the frontline go all the way to the channel?

Disclaimer: I am not someone who regularly reads into WWII history or almost any history to begin with, and am severely ignorant when it comes to the topic at hand.

Recently I’ve been doing a little bit of research on the different sides and perspectives of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, trying to understand for myself why the bombs were dropped and whether or not it was truly the “best” course of action (trying to be careful with my words, the bombings were definitely tragic no matter what anyone says).

I stumbled upon a few reads that justify the bombings by bringing up the potential amount of both American and Japanese casualties if a land invasion were to occur, mentioning a so called “operation ketsugo” where civilians would be taught and encouraged to raise arms against would be invaders, saying that it would be a fight to the last man, woman, and even child. This intrigued me but I quickly realized that I couldn’t really find much more about this supposed policy aside from the few articles I was reading. “Operation ketsugo” is mentioned by name in the Wikipedia page for operation downfall but doesn’t even have its own Wikipedia page where I can go look for sources

Any information pertaining this topic is greatly appreciated.

“Arrr” “Me Hardies” “Avast ye Land Lubbers” etc.

I started wondering about this use of crazy or mad after watching a show on Crazy Horse (1840-1877), then came across Haakon the Crazy (1214) and Othenin the Mad (1338) all the way up to my personal favorite, Mad King Ludwig (1845-86).