Also is there anything in ww1 about paratroopers?

I recently red about the Codebreakers at Bletchley Park, and how they cracked the German enigma, and the consequenses of this on the war as a whole. After a bit of searching on Wikipedia I began to wonder:

• Did German codebreakers ever crack the British cipher machine used for communication?
• If Germany did figure out how to decipher British communications, did the U.K change their encryption methods when this was discovered?

Just wondering since there was already Franco in Spain, wouldn't it have been easier for the Germans, instead of trying to controll Africa (where they were at a severe disadvantage, since they didn't have Colonial Troops, who were used to the Climate) Instead why didn't they try to get Franco-spain into the Axis, i mean at this point, after conquering france, they kinda controlled most of Europe. They could have just tried to force Franco into fighting with them, propably that wouldn't even been neccesary since, Hitler was winning at that point (1940) therefore it wouldn't have been hard to get Spain into the Axis, either way ontop of having additional Spain troops, who are always usefull, couldn't they just stopped essential British Supplie Lines, to India, Australia etc. by fortifieing Gibraltar ? This way it would have propably been impossible to get many Supply Ships into the meditteranian, without having to waste many Ressources on Africa ? Yes it isn't as easy to secure as the Suez-Channel, but i don't thinkit would have been a huge Problem. Also getting Spain into the War-effort surely would have been positive too. Yes Italy possesd "Colonies" in Africa, who however were hardly worth fighting for.

Ps: I just read Spain offered Germany to join its war, Hitler however rejected ... why ? More allies the better or is there any downside in having additional Ressources ? Yes the war was going fine, still why not use the Spains, to support the German Army, and use the Spanish Workforce for the war ?

Edit: By fortifieing i mean, installing Artillery, deploying many Submarines, if possible get some battleships there, and most importantly: Get a significant Amount of Planes onto a Airfield close to there. This way a Fleet, that would attempt to break the Blockade, would have to fight the Luftwaffe, and since the Allies had few Aircraft carriers at that Point, they would propably be at a significant disadvantage, and as the Bismarck has shown: a Battleship attacked by Planes, really can't do much. Also at this Point the Luftwaffe was pretty strong, and its unlikely that the RAF, would have been able to fight them there as effective, as they did over England.

[deleted]

Note, this is from an askreddit question i saw, and wanted to get some pros thoughts on it, this is not my question.

Although I'm aware that many Vikings retained Norse rituals such as placing swords and other goods into their graves, it's always confused me as to why they converted so quickly.

It seems in particular with the Hiberno-Norse that Galgoidell were much more Christian in their beliefs than Norse, although I'm aware some just added 'God' to their already large pantheon.

[Edit] I'm looking for information on Vikings around the Irish Sea region specifically but any information would be interesting

I know this isn't a question directly pertaining to history, so sorry if this doesn't belong here. Figured this would be the best place to post.

Any time I hear history majors brought up in conversation -- whether it be in a real life conversations or ones online -- it always ends in some horror story...250k in student loan debt only to work as a janitor in an art museum, stuck in an underfunded park ranger station, having to go on unemployment for months as a history professor...you get the point...

Anyways, I was just interested if anyone here has any real, actual experience with this as opposed to the "he said she said" you hear a lot of in regards to being a history major. I know having a bachelors in history is a starting point for many on their way to law school -- I was wondering more about the people whp actually went to graduate school. Were you able to gain some kind of employment that is actually related to your degrees? Is this something that often comes to history majors who work hard enough, or a rare occurrence? Do you wish you majored in something else entirely? I'm being encouraged by a few history professors who say they think I'd do well to go to graduate school and major in history, but I worry about how many realistic job opportunities there'd be and how fulfilling it would be, I guess. Any advice or experience would be appreciated.

Perhaps leap years weren't taken into account, or a powerful figure decided some years didn't exist for whichever reason...

Additionally, I have the following questions:

1. How were logistics handled? Did they own their own ships, or did they rely on paying to get around?
2. How did they recruit men? Wikipedia says that their fighting force ranged from upwards of 5,500 men to a low of 250. How could a mercenary company consisting of such few men attract seasoned and skilled fighters?
3. Did mercenary companies have a "base of operations" so to speak? If, say, a Central European king wanted to hire them, where would they go to find them?
4. Finally, how were the contracts enforced? What would stop a mercenary company from jumping ship at the sign of a loss? If they did indeed jump ship (given that they were around for at least a hundred years), why would any new employer trust them?

Thanks for answering my questions! I really appreciate it.

[deleted]

What heraldry would be the most appropriate and/or typical to wear on my surcoat to the tournament? The crest of my own noble house? The crest of my personal (minor) title? Or the crest of my direct liege who I have sworn military service to? Maybe a combination?

Part of my family is from Silesia and after ww2 moved to saxony, Germany. can anyone please tell me, are the people in saxony the same people that colonized brittania? if yes, do saxons live in other parts of europe near the german state of saxony? how much are anglo-Saxons and German Saxons alike in culture etc, what parts of this culture is unique to the germans or anglo-Saxons. I know these are broad questions. Thank you.

I am curious as to why names like Æthelflæd , Cuthbert , Eadhild, Æthelwulf etc. ceased to be popular. We have names nowadays that have been around for hundreds of years, so why have these names I have mentioned slowly been eased out of use? I know for sure if someone said their name was Eadhild today, they would get some strange looks, while someone called Christopher would probably be able to pass unnoticed in today's world, and back then as well

In the 19th and the early 20th century, wars in Asia and Africa were a relative cakewalk for the Europeans (even when fighting modernized enemies like the Boers). After WW2, the french wars in Indochina, the Algerian war, and later the US campaigns in the Middle East have become constant, bloody, expensive guerilla wars with no end in sight. What exactly has changed?

I was listening to another podcast earlier and the guys were trying to figure out when or at what time frame it happened, but could not conclusively find anything. Are there any historical documents that detail when the final naval battles took place using canons and before transitioning to the more current form of cruise missiles, etc.?

For clarity, I mean the traditional front-loaded canons that the majority of people think of when they think old wooden ship naval battles. I would be interested in dates for other canon-like projectile systems (like you see on the big canons used on battleships) if you have them :)

In drawings and diagrams, it seems like those cities were at most a few square kilometers. In Assassin's Creed, a supposedly historically accurate game, they're also about the same size. But the idea of cities that only house a few thousand people sounds strange, given that by the Black Death time, there were like 30 or 40 million people in Europe. So what were cities like back then?