I'm sorry if this question isn't specific, I'll try to clarify here:

Henry II is the first King of England is sometimes credited in more recent times to be the founder of the Angevin Empire, because of his substantial lands in France. Based on my limited and quick research, the term Empire isn't really accurate, as he governed over his titles as seperate entities, similar to his ancestor William I. From what I understand, his lands in France were therefore subject to French law, and essentially under the King of France.

But Henry's highest title is King of England, and given that he had at times control over greater parts of France than the King himself, did Louis VII have any authority over Henry's lands on the continent? It seems that Louis was afraid Henry might eventually take over as King of France. Were Henry to lay claim to the Kingdom of France, would it have been seen as a revolt or conquest? (Sorry for the if question, no need to answer it if unclear)

I guess the basis of my question is the claim I've often seen that Medieval England wasn't a key player in continental European politics until the 100 years war, or even not until the Tudors. People that makes these claims often say that England is only being hyped up because of its later dominant Empire. This has often seemed odd to me, especially for the rule of the 3 Angevin kings.

To try to simplify: Were Henry's lands in France more of a loose confederation of weak vassals, or was Henry seen as a second king almost next to Luis?

Additionally, his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine must confirm him as a man of high importance. Did that marriage secuire his control over Aquitaine, or was it still ruled by Eleanor as she had prior to their marriage?

I'm sorry if my rambling here is confusing, and if I haven't simplified my answer. I'll welcome any insight into the complicated political landscape of this region in the mid 12th century, even if it doesn't relate to much of what I've discussed/asked

Having previously read authors like Fest and Kershaw, this book presents an absolutely revolutionary view of Hitlers life and situation. Not being a historian I have no idea how to reconcile New information like this

I’m watching a documentary that mentioned Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill met in Tehran in November 1943. How did they get there safely? What sort of protections and procedures would be undertaken during these meetings? I believe I saw mention of Churchill visiting Africa as well. It seems like it would be very risky to move leaders around the world during these times.

I'm not sure if this belongs here but compared all the other calibers of pistols used and designed between the 1890s and 1910, what caused the 9mm luger round to endure while other calibers such as 7.63 mauser and others fell out of favor?

[deleted]

I'm speaking generally of isolationist Japan, around and before its opening by the Perry Expedition.

So, I won't pretend to know anything significant about katanas.

What I know is that they were expensive and time-consuming to make, usually failed against most weapons hailing from countries that had easy access to good steel instead of having to spend a ton of time and money tempering it, that they were absolutely useless against armor, and that their main advantage was cutting power against soft tissue.

They weren't even used as a main weapon in the battlefield as far as I know (although this also applies to arming swords and the like in most cases), as japanese had the common sense to use spears and bows. So why make a weapon only efficient against unarmored people? From what I've gathered, although this might be where I'm wrong, they were able to afford armor for their main fighting force, so it wouldn't even be that effective in infighting.

Bear in mind that I really want to be corrected here, because common sense warrants that I'm wrong/missing something and Japanese people didn't invent and the manufacture a sword that was one of the most difficult swords to make in the world, simply because making quality steel from what they had required a ton of work.

​

So yeah, most of the seemingly unbiased sources say katanas are good swords if used the way they were designed to be used. What situation were katanas designed for?

[deleted]

[deleted]

It kinda makes sense to use now if you think about it. They shoot heavy loads and can be shot faster than a bolt action rifle but I have never heard anyone say that one was used. Is there a certain reason for it or did it never occurred to the military to use it?

I've been getting more and more interested in WW1 and other historical topics, but I can never find a way to research historical topics without having to spend a lot of money, so what is the best way to research history?

In school, I learned far more about the Black Death that ravaged Eurasia in the 14th century, and how it ushered in land reformation, Antisemitic Pogroms, and the Italian Renaissance, than I ever did about the 20th century pandemic. Is there is a reason it remains forgotten today?

Did the persecution of Jews and other ethnic groups, and Nazi racial ideology, result in a drop in legitimate publications in fields of science, and a stagnation in some fields due to the rejection of "Jewish" science? What was the Nazi stance on Eintein and his theories?

Were there German scientists who continued to produce good science in Germany throughout the '30s and the '40s? Were there fields that were immune to the Nazi ideology and continued on like normal?

How many German scientists fled as a result of Nazism? And how many scientists were killed in the Holocaust?

I'm specifically not curious about the medical experiments in camps, but all other sciences.

The studies listed were from the 1982 and 1984, and I was wondering if any more thorough research has been conducted since, or whether the US really scrutinized the effect of radiation fallout over the town from their own tests.