It's basic knowledge. Everyone knows that Amerigo Vespucci (from Italy) discovered the Americas. Then Cristoforo Colombo came second. So, why didn't Italy colonize the Americas and let other powers do that?

Most of pop history focuses on Europe and the trench warfare there, but many of the European countries had immense colonial empires. What was the war like in Africa?

I was wondering if there's a modern book that is basically a catalogue of medieval sword, preferably 2 handed ones? I'm drawing a medieval piece and need real life references.

Moors are typically portrayed as black or dark skinned in art and European culture. Despite them being predominantly North African, why were they portrayed as black?

Was this due to some Moors being of Subsaharan heritage or more of a broad generalisation applied to North Africans?

In the early 90s, black metal musicians in Norway were famously anti-Christian, explicitly promoted Satanism and Paganism, and were collectively responsible for a string of church burnings. Did this approach to religion originate within that particular community, or was it based on other cultural trends or non-metal subcultures? In particular, I’m interested in the calls to action against places of worship, and the motivated return to worshipping historic Norse Gods.

I was wondering where I could find any documents that were against American influence on the integration of Europe between 1945-52. Specifically relating to The Marshall Plan, Truman Doctrine, ERP, and any policy resulting from those.

Thank you

US secretary of war, Henry L. Stimson (1940-45) stated that "having this weapon rather ostentatiously on our hip, their suspicions and their (Soviets) distrust of our purposes and motives will increase." (from the book "Atomic" by Jim Baggott) This quote is spoken in a way that the US thought they were at the forefront of military technology (A-bomb wise) but was spoken at a time were nuclear intelligence was sent to the USSR practically daily. Did the US know that there were spies on US territory, or at least, that the Soviets were making serious progressions in project "Enormoz" (Soviet a-bomb development)?

Within my understanding, Nazis in World War II had the view that the “aryan” race was the superior one, and the only one which needed to exist. So in those lines, what did the Nazis thought about the “non aryan” appearance of the Imperial Japanese Citizens. Do they didn’t care?, Did they thought it was bad?, Or maybe in secret, they hated them? I hope this is not a dumb question to ask, but it has come to my mind and Im very interested on how that worked. Thanks in advance.

Was it just a coincidence? I know the Union and Confederates were drawing from the same military traditions and physically taking from the same armouries so their internal similarities don't suprise me. I also know they barely had standard uniforms as such and they were pretty ad hoc, especially in the south.

But was there some deliberate attempt to be inconspicuous on the battlefield, and understanding that it was just good standard practice? And if so what culture and previous experience informed this break with European traditions at the time? If it wasn't a coincidence was there something unique about the American battlefield that made camouflage expedient?

I know camouflage was pretty much an ancient concept and had seem limited use by everyone in the gunpowder era for sharpshooters etc, but it also seems it was never considered broadly practical and necessary until smokeless cartridges were introduced (and in many cases for a long time after). Except in the United States where the plain uniforms are there in the 1860s, along with all these other 20th century premonitions like widespread use of trenches, steam power, telecommunications etc.

Also, did any European observers remark on the American uniforms at the time?

Bit of a strange question , if you'd allow it. I just came back from a trip in Northern France and visited a lot of the medieval historical sites. At the Palais de Tau in Reims, they implied that Hugh Capet was the first King of France that spoke 'vieux francais' instead of 'francique' . in the crypts of Saint Remi and St. Denis , the names of the queens and princesses were distinctly Germanic sounding , such as 'Bertha , Evochildis, Clothilde , Guntheuc, Fredegund, Theudechild, Ragintrudis, Wulfehundis , Bertrada...etc'. After the 800s they seem to have taken on more French (?) sounding names like Adela, Eleanor, Anne and Isabella. I saw that the Oath of Strasbourg was the first written text in 'old French' dated in 842 , which is a generation before Hugh Capet. Would it be correct to assume that by then bilingualism had taken hold in the aristocracy and completely disappeared in a generation?

Been listening to a few Army War College lectures on Youtube about the Battle of Gettysburg and its mentioned a few times that Stonewall Jackson was killed by friendly fire but for the most part that's all that is said about it, but it got me wondering about what happened to the guy that fired that shot.

Did he get court martialed and booted from the army, did he suddenly find himself volunteered for something that was pretty much a death sentence, was he taken into the woods and quietly disposed of or something else entirely?

I'm assuming it differs much based on gender and class, so I'm asking from the perspective of a male member (prince, king, etc.) of a royal family (prior to the reformation).

1. What arguments could I present that are legitimate/likely to persuade the Catholic church to grant me an annulment besides consanguinity?
2. Do we know of any medieval noblemen/women who attained annulments where the reasoning wasn't consanguinity (I am of the understanding that this means the spouses are too closely related)?

Do we have evidence of early abortions? Was it a taboo?

If so, should we assume that thinkers like Plato were giving cover for a tradition that had its route in economics/scarcity? Something else?

Many of the records of King Harald’s life comes from Snorri’s accounts, namely Haralds saga Sigurðarsonar and I was wondering, due to Snorri’s reputation as a propagandist and some of the rather… outlandish events of the saga (the escape from Constantinople among them) can we trust these accounts or are they just more of Snorri’s propaganda? Are there Kievan, Italian, or Byzantine records that confirm some of the events or are they entirely fabricated?

Whilst in enemy territory, supplies that were needed to feed the army were presumably taken by force, but what about when the army is marching or encamped in friendly territory? Was it still essentially plunder, or were the peasants (or their lord?) compensated for the goods? Was any consideration ever given to ensure that the villages supplying the army weren't starved ?

Europe - 1400’s

Let’s say England have invaded France. Most low level soldiers on both sides would have have the same type of armour. Steel and swords

Amongst the madness of war wouldn’t everyone blend in and look the same. How would they know at a glance that the solider next to them is an enemy?

I'm not really into history and never really cared. Big debate on whether I should or shouldn't care but that's for another time. However, I live in Alexandria, Egypt and Im pretty sure you can say that it's in the top 10 most important cities when it comes to world history. Maybe thats bullshit but all I know is it's significant enough and I wanted to learn more about it.

I'd love it if it was in video/documentary format rather than "go read ____" as I said, I find history incredibly boring and a video will help keep my attention. Thank you!