Was there any reluctance to certain public policies that, in Singapore’s context of the 1960s just after years of high levels of corruption, could have seemed authoritarian or ill-intended. For example, the Land Acquisition Act that empowered the govmnt to acquire land at low cost for “public use”

"Let's make terror the order of the day!" as Robespierre said, many radicals embraced the label of "terrorist". Marxists viewed terrorism as the primary method of state control, whether autocratic, democratic, or revolutionary. How did terrorism come to be seen more narrowly in its present, almost universally negative manner?

Who are we sure ever actually met Jesus? Did anyone who was responsible for writing a book in the Bible ever actually meet him? Are there any other historical writings in which the author claimed to have met him?

​

Edit: If this is not the place to ask this question please let me know.

I've been doing some research on my family tree, and I can supposedly trace it back to Boudica through one of her two daughters, assuming they survived long enough to have children.

Anyways, knowing that Boudica was Queen of the Iceni, I was wondering if it is possibly to trace her lineage?

According to another family tree I am looking at, her father is King Antedios of the Iceni, and her mother a woman named Locrina. I was wondering if there is any actual history that can support this?

​

Most land in Medieval Europe was owned by lords and they would fight over land and all that stuff. What would happen to a lord if they lost control of their land? Do they become peasants or do they get executed, what happens to them?

Hello! American here. I tried to post this in r/askbrits and got nowhere. Maybe you wonderful historians can help me!

I recently went down the rabbit hole into researching the Royal Family on Wikipedia. It started with Queen Victoria and hasn't stopped since. I noticed some variations in the titles, especially in the current Royal Family, and I wondered if someone could explain why?

So, Prince Charles married Lady Diana Spencer who became Princess Diana. I understand she adopted the title of Princess because she was already a Lady, right? And her children were therefore princes. Prince William's three children are all called Prince and Princess, even though Kate Middleton (from what I understand) was titleless before the marriage. So why are Prince Andrew's daughters called Princess, but Prince Edward's children are called Lady, and Anne, Princess Royal's children have no titles at all? How does that work? Does the mother's status matter? If not, why would one prince have princes/princesses for children and the other wouldn't?

Also, I notice everyone is the Duke or Duchess of something or another. Prince Charles's second wife is the Duchess of Cornwall. Why? I understand she didn't have a title like Diana did, so she can't be Princess, but why Cornwall and not Wales, if her husband is the Prince of Wales?

Also also, Prince William is the Duke of Cambridge, but his eldest son George is just Prince George of Cambridge. Why? Is it so you know whose child he is? Or because there can only be one Duke of Cambridge?

I can't seem to find any rhyme or reason in it, but I'd be very interested to hear how it all works.

So I'm reading a translation of the Irish epic the Táin Bó Cúailnge and I am so confused as to how people fought on chariots. The only time I've seen chariots in films are for things like chariot racing or someone charging into battle where a single person is in the chariot. However the Irish epic gives names for every chariot driver for the heros and a couple chariot drivers are the wives or sisters of the person fighting in the chariot.

So how did fighting in chariots work? I've seen no mention of bows or arrows so it doesn't seem like they were using chariots as a platform for their archers. I'm of course interested in how the Irish used them, but honestly I'll take any description of fighting in chariots. I'm just really confused now how they were used in warfare.

For example, if you visited say, Paris on two occasions a hundred years apart, would the same types of people be living in the same general area or did neighborhood demographics shift over time (e.g. gentrification)?

[deleted]

I was thinking about how similar the Romans were to us, even building massive sports stadiums. Did they have fun conspiracy theories about secret organizations that ran the world from the shadows?

I'm aware of some of the modern connections, some of the fascist leaders of the early 20th century mimicked Roman aesthetics, but I was wondering if any of the pre-modern states that modeled themselves after Rome ever made an attempt at a Triumphal march?

So I watched a youtube video where one of the hosts just randomly mentioned that burial sites containing victims of the Black Death are a real threat to archeologists and it's important that they quickly recognize that what they've just unearthed holds Black Death victims.(Supposedly because it still holds the pathogens and can thus be a bacteriological threat). He also mentioned that the reason for that was that people were buried in lead coffins which would preserve the bodies somewhat.

Now, to me, it sounds like a bit of a bullshit, especially since I recall that historians aren't even entirely sure what kind of a pathogen caused Black Death to begin with, but what do I know?

So would an archeologist that stumbled upon a burial pit from that time be in any real danger or be required to use any different proceedures compared to excavating any other grave?

Before the use of B.C., A.D., and BCE, how did people denote the date and time. EX: When Jesus was 12 years old people were not using the date, '12', right?

If I have a name, year of birth (or approximate), branch of service, and hometown, how much can I learn about someone's service in World War II? What are the best resources? Ex. Bill White, Athens, TN, 2nd Marine Corps Division, b. 1923.

​

Thank you in advance.

What happened to the Stuart’s after Scotland became part of Great Britain? Are they still around today, and if so, could they possibly regain the throne of Scotland if it becomes independent? If not, who would rule Scotland?

Title/thanks

I'm writing an undergraduate paper on what state England was in militarily before the major Viking attacks at the end of the tenth century and beginning of the eleventh (i.e. during Ethelred II's reign), hoping to explain why the system created at the end of the ninth century and beginning of the tenth by Alfred and Edward failed to protect England a century later. What I've found is that there are many primary and secondary sources on the creation of the Burghal System etc. (ASC, the Burghal Hidage, etc.), and quite a lot concentrating on Ethelred's reign (ASC again, Keynes' and Roach's work to name a few). Some of the sources I've seen have even gone so far as to basically blame the peaceful period of Edgar's reign for the decay of the system (Abels is one, in Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England).

The problem I seem to be facing is that most of the sources I can find for Edgar's reign itself choose not to focus on any of the military aspects, concentrating on monastic reform and his coronation instead. While those are interesting for different reasons (and the coronation does sort of tie into the whole military thing with it kind of maybe showing submission of local kings to him, I do understand that), they're not the things I'm looking for at the moment. Does anybody have any ideas for more sources (primary are good, but I'm especially dying for secondary reading, preferably accessible online but I'll take what I can get) I can look at?

I'm an A-Level student looking at historical interpretations for my coursework on Germany (1978-1991), and I'm struggling to get to grips with the complexities of the Sonderweg thesis and its opposition. Moreover, I'm reading a lot of work from Shirer and AJP Taylor, etc, but i can't find many quotes that summarise their views, can anybody give any guidance?