In 23 june 1789 Louis XVI warned to the Estates-General: "None of your projects, none of your resolutions, can HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW/S without my special approval"

Did he meant to say "None of your projects, none of your resolutions, can BECOME LAW without my special approval"?

In short: If a decision does not have "the force of law" because lacks approval, does it mean it is NOT a law?

Are there any books/documents that talk in depth about the advances in nuclear tech and production during the nuclear arms race?

Little background: I'm an editor and currently editing a manuscript for a client of mine. The manuscript deals heavily with religion, namely Christianity, and the author is exploring the nature of the Christian god by bringing up contradictions, uncomfortable truths, etc.

I have a list of suggested reading for him so that he may develop his ideas more and have more credible sources so as to support his arguments better. I have a specific piece in mind that I want to suggest, but unfortunately I cannot, for the life of me, remember what it's called or even who the original author is.

Here is what I do remember:

• Obviously Medieval. I'm sorry I cannot be more specific as the Medieval period spans ~1000 years :(

• It addresses all the contradictions in the Christian Bible and asks them to be answered

• The author's point wasn't to argue that Christianity is wrong, but that in order to take the Bible literally, then these contradictions must be answered

• There are (I think) over 400 contradictions that the author brings up

I greatly apologize for being so utterly vague. With such little memory of details that I have about the piece, it's nearly impossible to find exactly what I'm looking for on the interwebs, so I'm hoping that someone here can help me out. Thank you in advance.

I grew up in a religious setting. I was taught many stories from the Bible. Among these stories was one about the enslavement of the Hebrews and their eventual exodus from tyranny. However, many readings I’ve done on the ancient Egyptians seem to not mention this at all. So did this really happen? Or is this just a biblical tale?

I was at a lecture today and the speaker mentioned that classes hadn't changed much for hundreds of years. He used two terms which I thought were pretty slick: Sage on Stage, and Chalk and Talk. According to him the biggest change has been chalk board to white boards and the diversity of the student body.

This is a broad question but what has changed? Would the overall college structure with semester long classes be different? Did they have similar sorts of schedules, one hour two or three times a week. Would homework from 1800 be recognizable today?

I hope comparisons to today don't violate the 20 year rule, if so how would early colleges compare to 1998?

Having learned a fair bit about WWI through history classes and such, I know the war is sort of famous for the prolonged trench warfare, but were there any large-scale naval battles during the time? Or did the war all happen in continental Europe and there was never any call for naval combat?

Obstensibly, the USSR was supposed to spread the revolution internationally; so why then did it set-up independent socialist governments in Eastern Europe instead of creating additional Soviet Socialist Republics to enter into the Union? I know in reality the USSR was predominantly just a successor to the Russian Empire, but I'm curious if there is any more to it since these puppet states were part of the former empire as well.

To me, it makes sense to both spread the revolution and reconquer old territories.

Title says it all. I'm curios to learn what and how he learned.

Okay, so I'm friends with a military history nerd who says that Japan's tanks were pretty awful during ww2, and that their doctrine for them was really dumb, treating them basically as infantry that required fuel. He claims that had Japan put more effort into tanks, they might have been able to win in China, and possibly win the war.

However, I really don't see how that could work. While China has a lot of nice flat tank country, the main enemy the Japanese faced there (as far as I know, at least) was their own supply lines, as China's awful infrastructure prevented them from expanding any further than they did in real life. I can't imagine adding large amounts of fuel on the list of things the Japanese needed to lug out to the middle of nowhere would help their supply chain any.

Meanwhile, in Burma, not only was the supply situation awful because like, dirt roads in a jungle aren't really good for that kind of thing, but like, they were in a jungle, which is basically the exact opposite of good tank country. Even if they had been able to supply large amount of tanks out there, I can't see what good they'd've done.

Meanwhile in the pacific islands, the supply situation was a lot less awful because you really couldn't get that far away from a port, I still can't see what good tanks would be. Like, from what I understand the optimal use of tanks, at least back then, was to break through enemy lines so you could encircle and destroy massive enemy armies with a numerically inferior force. But like, the pacific islands they fought on are, as far as I know, pretty small. Is there even enough room there for that kind of a maneuver there?

My question is narrow in scope [topic] and broad in scope [language] but it is confined to one group, the Anglo-Saxons.

I was reading a history book online [PDF format] and it had this:

|| :| |Lloyd House, Lloyd Farm, in Penn, 4 m. S. of Wolverhampton. |The root is perhaps A. S. lead, leode, M. E. lude, which has a variety of meanings, e. g. men or people of the country, a prince or nobleman, sometimes ' a country, or district/ apart from its inhabitants. The difficulty here is in the application of any one of these meanings to a pi. n.

At first, I thought it was Welsh llwyd "gray", which often becomes Lloyd in some contexts, and Mercia being close to Wales.

At that time there would have been Anglo-Saxons like Wulfrun in existence, and Wigstan, who was a Mercian prince [I know there is a town called Wobaston, meaning "Wigstan's town", from the Old English personal name + tun "farm"].

The Old English dialect at the time was Mercian, which probably explains why Wall is from Mercian waella instead of Old English wella.

How does some of the Old English get corrupted and twisted so it gets confused with Celtic [at the time of the Anglo-Saxons there were probably a few Celts living there, am I correct?].

I'm trying to understand the Anglo-Saxons [Mercia region] for several reasons - historical research and creative works [worldbuilding/alternate history/videogame with historical settings, although those fall outside the purview of this subreddit].

The book is obviously a secondary source, but it uses place-names from historical rolls/Onomasticum [I believe that was a Latin book at the time] from 1100s/1200s, which are primary sources.

I've used Google Street View to try and understand the landscapes for topography, not sure if that helps or not for place-name meanings.

I'm doing some basic research into history/placenames, but other than these books, where are good places to start? I don't really want to get into paywalled educational resources, but I do know my local libraries don't have as many place-name books as in the early 2000's, so it's a bit harder to research there now.

Finding good websites to research is the harder bit, as I'm trying to treat them as a source that's being assessed too [wrong mindset?]

Obviously, I can't really gain access to the primary sources due to fragility of them, so the books as secondary sources are the next best thing.

I would appreciate any input from historians on interpreting and understanding these sort of secondary sources, and place-names in general.

Was this always the case? Were other orientations used in antiquity? What caused this to become the default map orientation?

I have read Athena being called Pallas Athena a few times, but I can't seem to find what the 'Pallas' part is for. Is there an explanation behind this addition to the name?

As for Athena Promachios, I read that it is a 'nickname' for that specific depiction for Athena. Is that a 'universal' depiction of Athena (i.e. is this depiction found in different parts of Ancient Greece) or is it tied to only one location?

Finally, I have only found instances of Athena having examples of this. Do the other Greek gods have these as well?