I have been listening to Michael C Drout’s lecture series on the Anglo-Saxons and he loves Beowulf, just loves it. But his only point of view is from the Anglo Saxon and modern perspective of the text. He later references the Elizabethans/Henry VIIers raiding the monasteries to learn about the Anglo-Saxon past as confirmation to their own religious views. But was Beowulf rediscovered during this time? Was it rediscovered even later? Did monks and lay people during the Middle Ages know about Beowulf?

I read the Wikipedia article on the poem and it just mentions Tolkien was the first to do modern scholarship on Beowulf in “On Translating Beowulf”.

I know the Homeric and Virgil’s works were know by poets and authors of the “High Middle Ages” as was general roman mythology but somehow I don’t think the English, a conquered people had much impact besides Arthurian literature

Were they just used as scapegoats?

During the 16th - 18th centuries during siege warfare the attacker would build increasingly complex siege lines that would approach the enemy over the course of days, weeks, and months until they were able to become close enough and do enough damage to the fortifications and capitulate the enemy. The trenches in the beginning of the war (Western Front) were very simple as they developed from small foxholes and simple dugouts. I was wondering what made it impossible to dig lines towards the enemy on a diagonal similar to how earlier European sieges took place. I realize that artillery was more accurate and devastating and I also know that most World War I generals and their officers were much more intelligent and competent than they're usually made out to be.

So what made the older siege line technique impossible?

[deleted]

I can't recall the article in which I read this, but it basically said that there were problems with the men that came from the countryside and were used to be heads of family. They were not used to taking orders and, often, reacted violently towards their employers.

Is there any degree of truth to this?

Sorry for the bad English.

Hello,

Does anyone know of a publication with bibliographic essays recapping the year's scholarship on American Colonial or Revolutionary era history? Thanks. I'm looking for something similar to American Literary Scholarship which does the same for major American authors.

Thanks

I recently rewatched Inglorious Basterds (which is of course not a historical depiction of the era) and was interested in the characterization of Nazi attitudes toward people of African descent. In the film, they actively hunt down Jews in occupied France, but seem content to (look down upon but) leave one black character alone. Were people of African descent not necessarily destined to be sent to ghettos/ concentration camps?

The book does not elaborate on this. Why would he have expressed such an opinion toward literate folk?

The nords seem like they were very keen of their gods and I was wondering when they starded renouncing them?

[deleted]

[deleted]

It seems that most of the time most of the Iran region has been owned by a single country. Achaemenid empire > Alexander > Seleucids > Parthia > Sassanids etc. However it seems to be a really mountainous region and surely that would make it difficult to rule over and favor more local governments. So my question is that what is it about Iran that makes it easier to rule over than other mountainous regions. Or if it is not easier then why were so many different empires able to do it, especially in ancient times.

In hindsight it seems like it would not be out of the realm of possibility to see the severity of electing the Nazi party in germany before they gained power, and to understand it may result in serious consequences. Were there any public figures who predicted or warned of the consequences of the party? Who were they? Were they ignored? What was their fate?