[deleted]

Are there any evidences that the Stonehenge was used as a heathen place of worship by the Anglo-Saxons?

Numerous accounts claim that the Sherman was a very inferior tank compared to the German Panther, Tiger, and even the Panzer-IV. The British called it "The Ronson", because it "Lights up the first time, every time!", the Germans called them "Tommy Cookers", and the Poles called it "The Burning Grave"

At the same time, I've seen many accounts calling it an excellent medium tank design that was well suited for its intended role.

Is this a matter of differing opinions? Was the Sherman used incorrectly in war? Or was it the fault of inexperienced or bad crews who didn't know how to use it effectively? Is there any consensus on this debate?

Given my own limited knowledge of Chinese history, I've been under the impression that this bias was inserted as anti-Mongol propaganda when it was written during the Yuan Dynasty, then later turned up to 11 during the Qing Dynasty when Mao Lun apparently re-wrote the entire thing, assumedly in response to the Jurchen conquest.

It's easy to draw literary parallels between Cao Wei & the Yuan/Jurchen as the tyrants from the north, with Shu Han & the Ming as the true heirs from the south. But due to my ignorance of Chinese cultural history, I'm curious if there was some specific reason that the Shu Han might've been the ones who were viewed more favorably over time instead of their more successful rivals.

This is a topic that is of great interest to me, but I am having a hard time finding some credible sources. I know that there is some debate nowadays in some states about fair/equal funding between rural and urban schools, but it's mostly just news articles rather than books or journals.

Thank you in advance!

Overall, what can we say about whether there would have been more or less war in, say, the 1950s and 1960s had WW2 been won with only conventional means, and the technology for nuclear weapons never manifested for whatever reason? Did the A-bomb stave off another industrialized world war, or did the resulting American hegemony and Cold War simply funnel the conflicts into proxy wars that might not otherwise have occurred?

Edit: In the High middle ages

I'm trying to understand women's work during the industrial revolution (like factory work) and how this was possible without contraception, synthetic breast milk to give to the child who requires breastfeeding, maternity leave, etc.

What did they do with respect to their children? They didn't have family planning services like we do today that can allow women to forgo their pregnancy until desired. Did they keep celibate? What else did they do?

Specifically, were they motivated to attend because they wanted to cheer on their team/competitor (and be entertained) or just to be entertained for the day.

This is a broad question so let me narrow it down a bit. Was there any real concern that the US may not be able to beat the Germans, or was it just matter of time and cost, due to the industrial power of the US?

I'm trying to understand what the feeling was among those in the know. Was America ever in any real danger?

Hey everybody I have been wondering if all I heard in school and television about being gay in ancient Greece and Rome was true or not. I know it was more popular and accepted but could they get married? How were lesbians treated in these cultures? Since Greece was a collection of city states were some cities better or worse for gay couples? When did this era of acceptance end?

The fall of the Western part of the Roman Empire is still up for debate but perhaps one of the few factors that historians think that led to the instability of Roman politics was when the Roman army started to hire the barbarians and other tribes that fought against into the Roman army.

However, while they did their best to teach these people that values and virtues of Rome and show their loyalty to the Roman emperor and the empire and show their love for Rome, they often did the opposite and remained only loyal to their money or gold or their commanders who may or may not felt the same way about Rome during that time since many things were changing fast and led to a lot of civil wars, confusion and low morale and even fear.

But when you consider this approach of hiring barbarians of other foreign tribes in the Byzantine empire, this actually worked like the Germanic people actually became the Varangian Guard, the most elite soldiers in the military which were the counterparts of the Praetorian Guard.

So how did this tactic not work in the case of the Western Roman Empire but in the Eastern Roman Empire, it actually worked?

Quick edit based on the moderator comment: I'm not after cited sources or fine detail or anything like that. I mention magic in the next paragraph - this is a very fluid and unprofessional work of fiction. Contributions from anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever are appreciated. Sounds like there have been some bad novelist experiences. I have no business being called a novelist, and can write around pretty much any answer, I just think it would be worthwhile to not be making numbers up when I give background.

I'm thinking of slapping together a short story of sorts, and a foundation of it is that the catholic church tried some crazy magic to obliterate all the pagans in the world. This failed, because they vastly underestimated the world population due to ignorance of entire continents. In the interest of not looking like an idiot, I'd rather not make these numbers up, although obviously very broad estimates are fine.

Timeline-wise, I'm thinking ballpark 1100. Right around the start of the crusades, maybe I'll treat the crusades as the fallback plan when this voodoo stuff failed. Is it safe to say that the Catholic church was around its peak and a major political power at this time?

Assuming I'm right about that, the tougher part is the relative populations. Google has informed me that there were ballpark 300 million people in the world in 1100, and maybe 55-60 million in Europe. I assume then, that my Catholic base is around 50 million. I'm pretty sure the whole missionary thing didn't start til a couple hundred years later, so am I safe assuming Africa and the East were non-Christian?

And, finally, were there any major population centers of which Europe would be completely unaware outside of the Americas? How many of those ballpark 300 million people would a European power have no idea existed?

Obviously these numbers don't really matter but it's fun to get it kinda right, though I'm completely ignorant when it comes to history. For anyone worried, I have nothing against the Catholic church and this isn't intended as a commentary on religion, I just think it's fun backstory. Any insight is appreciated.

In the end of 1944 the us navy was significantly larger, better trained and better equipt. Also they had multiple years of experience in carrier operations and scouting. How was such a large ijn taskforce able to go unnoticed, after already being detected and atacked before, and also find a lone group of usn escort carriers ? What exactly did the usn wrong and the ijn right that day ?

Edit: I woke up to three excelent answers. Thank you very much.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Is that why the Nazis were prosecuted in an international court?

[deleted]

Hello, am looking for any books that cover the period in Mexican history from Spanish control of mexico ( specifically post conquering of mexico and the beginnings of Spanish settlements and towns in mexico) up to independence of mexico from spain.

Thanks in advance