I’ve been interested in reading this book in a long time but have been worried that this may not be historically accurate. Book was written by Stuart Laycock

I know there was outstanding bravery shown by the USS Johnson's, USS Samuel B. Roberts', and many other ship's captains and crews had an effect, but did admiral Korita retreat truly because he believed he was outmatched? Did he ever give a reason for retreating? Since he could see the force he was facing, I don't know how he could have thought he was outgunned, unless he thought for some reason the main US aircraft carrier force was nearby, but I would have figured he would have gotten word that they were busy trying to destroy the IJN decoy aircraft carrier fleet several hundred miles away. I also thought that this was pretty much a last ditch effort by the IJN to stop McCarthur's island hoping campaign. Wouldn't Kurita basically have had orders to "fight to the death" at that point? Lastly, was admiral Korita disciplined for withdrawing when he (at least in hindsight) had such a huge advantage and could have done serious damage to the US ground forces at Leyte?

Disclaimer: I don't look at Vikings as a historically accurate show, this just struck me as an interesting concept and I wanted to see if it was accurate.

EDIT: As stated below, I wrote this question very quickly at work so I apologize for its rambling nature. To clarify: Was it commonplace for Christian religious leaders (Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Cardinals) to participate in a battle, as either a commander or supporting figure?

I saw a youtube video that argued that the postwar economic prosperity was a kind of fake, manufactured boom due to the government basically taking control of the economy and that was why the prosperity didn't last after it was replaced with capitalism once again.

To what extent was the US economy dictated by the government during that period?

There's always this discussion about how various breakthroughs and discoveries would put the researchers involved at odds with Christian dogma, and therefore at odds with the Church and at risk of life and limb in some cases. But then I also read how monks and other kinds of people did things like conduct research, preserve texts, and train individuals in ways that they could become both literate and eventually scientists. So I want to ask, did both these things occur simultaneously to a large extent? Or was one a rare occurrence and the other common? Did Jesuits and related monastic orders operate "under the radar" in this regard and/or was it just a few really dramatic discoveries that clashed with a specific leader's view of the scriptures/God/universe etc? I've felt that broad condemnations of the church were either not warranted or come from anti-religions motivations, but I'm not sure if my opinion is accurate. No, I'm not Catholic. But it is somewhat personal to me because I am a PhD student doing research and also I practice my particular religion. This is not a question on how much good or bad the Church or Christianity has done at large, though obviously there's some relationship.

How did one board a ship in the 17th century? If you were sailing from England to America in 1640, for example, did you get on board via gangplank, rope ladder, or some other means?

Back in the days of the Roman Empire, the lands West of the Rhine seemed less developed than those in the Roman Empire. However, by the High Middle Ages, the Western and Southern areas of Germany seemed to have reached a comparable level of development as France and England. How did this happen under the Germanic kingdoms and later the Franks and their successors? (assuming my assumptions are correct)

Upvote what you liked, add your own submissions if something is missing that you think should be here!

I'm in the early stages of thinking about the topic for my undergrad dissertation, and was hoping for a bit of help. I'm looking to write around the Cold War, but need help narrowing it down, as I think that is too broad a subject. The role of Berlin/Germany over the time period seems interesting (Berlin Wall, airlift, 4 power occupation, etc), but I'm unsure of how to word that as a question. I'm also interested in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but again, am unsure of the direction and the nature of the question.

Any help or advice would be really greatly appreciated :)

Obviously propaganda played a huge part in the cold war for both sides. Has this shaped our collective understanding of the "losing" side?

Currently writing a piece on how changes in technology have changed how war is experienced, specifically the role of aircraft around their first mass deployment as military tools in WWII.

Does anyone have any good books or sources they could point me in the direction of? Thanks.

The Italian Army gets a lot of flak in WW2 discussion for being a spectacular failure in almost anything it set out to do. However what about the Navy? Its my understanding that Italy was a rather big naval power and their ships were at the very least up to par when put against British naval assets in the Med. My question is, is that assessment accurate? If so, how was the Brits able to still beat them?

[deleted]

I only know very little about the Deer Park and I’m fascinated that a king could actually build something like this. What was the background of the women? How were they chosen? Did they have a ‘career’ there and what happened when it was over?

Thank you

I guess what I'm thinking of are the generation of states that came around the 7th to 9th century, specifically the Lombards, Asturias, Umayyads and the Frankish kingdoms. How did they utilise Roman law, culture, or identity in their administration? Can any of them be considered "successors"?

I hope my question doesn't come off as ignorant but I am curious as to the relationship between the 3 Islamic also Turkic empires. Mughal Empire - Safavid and Ottoman Empire were all 3 having Turkic roots and all 3 adopting the Islamic faith. Surely there relationship should have been a bit more positive compared to there relationships with Europe or non-Islamic nations.

What were there relationships like? were they positive or negative and if negative, why were they negative? since they all have similarities when it comes to faith and ethnicity, surely something good could've came out of this, rght? or am I wrong?

I really appreciate your time!