What were some of the similarities and what were the differences? I was just reading how the feudal domains lasted up until close to the 1900's. So its fascinating that their feudal system lasted so much longer than ours did.

I've been taking a class at my college about divided Germany, going from the end of World War 2 to the reunification of Germany. So far, most of the class (as well as most other students' knowledge of it) focuses on the successes of the West Germany economic system and the failures of the East German's command economy. While history does seem to favor the West, and I have no doubt given hindsight which "did it better", I also know that the nuances and complicated matter of history mean that it couldn't be that black and white. So, getting to my question: what things was the economic system of East Germany able to do better than the West? And what shortcomings did the West German system have? I hope this question is clear enough!

Is it based on the number of popes before them in a certain time frame or based on the number of identically named popes before them. For instance if I chose the name Pope Hilarious would I be Pope Hilarious II since there was one other pope named Hilarious or would I used another number?

From my perspective, history seems to jump from the end of World War II to the rising popularity of TV and the Red Scare in the early '50s, so there's this 5-6 year void where nothing seems to have happened except the beginning of the Cold War.

I'm aware that there was a lot of suspicion in the empire around Christianity in the early days, but what was it about the religion which was so enticing to average working Romans in Greece, Egypt, Syria, and Italy that they would feel compelled to abandon the Hellenic faith they'd known for millennia? It must have been really something to gain converts in the face of early prosecution.

One can try to imagine what a meal would have looked like for, say, an Anasazi farmer living in modern day New Mexico a millenium ago, based on the local plant and animal life, and maaaaybe on what the dishes of more recent indigenous peoples were like.

But how can archaeological remains help us to learn about traditional cuisine and cooking techniques? Is it typical to find specialized cooking tools (along the lines of a mandolin, colander, or whisk) in ancient cultures? Do marks left on kitchenware give us useful information on food preparation (scratches could indicate using knives to cut food, for instance)? Traces of minerals or proteins left behind that indicate how heavily spices or salt may have been used, or how often certain ingredients were combined?

Even modern significant people are often referred to by their last name so what makes Napoleon stand out?

I have read arguments that the only reason Germany lost WWI is because their only major allies (Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian Empires) were utterly inept, thus leaving the Kaiserreich on its own to fight three large adversaries.

These sound like they’re coming from Kaiserboos though.

Had the dynamics been strictly Germany against any individual nation, would they have won as handily as suggested?

As in, listing that such and such place is owned by baron x, who owes allegiance to earl y, who owes allegiance to duke z, who owes allegiance to the king.

And doing it for an entire kingdom, providing a snapshot of its organisation at a given moment in time?

I'm Looking for a reading list. The topics don't matter, I just want to read everything I can possibly get my hands on. Leave absolutely any history book you think is important. Thanks!

Of course, the British became aware to the extent of the Germany's failures thanks to the Farm Hall manuscripts, but I was wondering what the US reaction was.

My boss used this story about how the polish used Armor Piercing Lances against the USSR during WWII because they were too proud of their Calvary skills to adjust to modern times and build tanks. They were then defeated handily by the Russian tanks. Can someone provide some references to this claim? I’d like to learn more.

I ask this because i am arguing with my father about it, i think he is going into the deep end of conspiracy theories. He came to me today and told me he was reading Acts in the Bible and came across this:

Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them

This is St. Stephen talking to the Jewish tribunal before he was stoned to death, accusing them of idolatry. After some "research" he discovered that King Solomon brought this star from Egypt after marrying the pharaohs daughter, my dads words:

"The star belonged to Saturn who is Satan. Solomon built temples for this star god and used it as his seal. The star has 6 sides clockwise and counter clockwise and the inner hexagram has 6 sides, which is 666. This was never the symbol of Jewish poeple in the old or new world. Only until 1894 the first Zionist congress who adopted it as their symbol. Then Israel placed it on their flag and worshiped it. The star god satan."

As you can tell, he is not a fan of Israel. We are Palestinians, so that part makes sense. But this reeks of youtube conspiracy theory bullshit and he is almost 70, so i'm worried he is being duped because of his bias. I tried to convince him that it's a transliteration of Hebrew and should read:

For you lifted up the shrine of your king (i.e., pagan god), and the pedestal of your idols, [even] the star of your gods which you made for yourselves.

But he says that the star was also a seal of King Solomon, mentioned in the Quran.

I'm not a theologian, so it's hard for me to speak to him about this, let alone telling your own father that they are wrong. Can someone give some background into this? Anything is appreciated. Thanks!

I'm not seeing any connection to Palestine other than he's a Muslim himself. Was he sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, just an anti-Semitic person, or something else? Was there really no good reason?

I mean the fact that he backed up the hijackers with the Ugandan military seems to say to me that he felt this was important.

I'm writing a historical mystery novel set in piracy's golden age, and I'm having a hard time with the ships. In my novel, the antagonist is apart of a pirate crew in command of a Sixth Rate, all of them deserters from the Royal Navy, which is why I chose a Sixth Rate. Also, a Sixth Rate, from what I read, is smaller than a frigate, but bigger than a sloop, or brig. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have a hard time judging the size of a ship from pictures. I'd really like to see one up close and personal, but this is the modern age, with fast cars and advanced cell phones, so such a thing is unlikely. I know pirates never really took a shine to big, lumbering ships like galleons, but we know Blackbeard had the 40-gun Queen Anne's Revenge, which has to be pretty big.

My trouble is this: is a Sixth Rate, crewed by deserters of the Royal Navy, an inaccurate use of ship for what I'm trying to do, and what ship would be the most accurate to take it on? I don't know if sloops would do, or brigs, an East Indiaman? That is my trouble.

Thank you in advance of answering. This is my favorite time period, but I don't know everything that there is to know. I appreciate any serious answer to this post. Also, I want something that isn't totally inaccurate, like Pirates of the Caribbean type ships going at but, something that is realistic. I'm willing to make changes, so as to keep things as real as possible.

I was at Appomattox Court House recently, and am now a little confused. I understand that MG Custer burned 3 supply trains at Appomattox Station, 2 miles from Appomattox Court House, which really dug a stake into Lee's resolve.

However, in quite a few of the paintings Custer is portrayed as being present. As he was only a Division commander in the Army of the Shenandoah, and a Brevet MG at that, it seems like he wouldn't be there. The parlor is not spacious.

So, could have been there? If not, why was he in so many of the commencement paintings?