In particular, were these Romanians claiming to be the successors or to have any kinship to the recently-fallen Byzantine empire?

I just fall in love with the thought of researching it. It's kind of beautiful. I know, dumb of me - but how can I start to become a decent "historyhead"? Do you have to have academic background, as in history degree? I am mainly interested in Byzantium and ancient nations, so it's still a bit really a lot. What can I do to start developing these interests?

I have a friend who is convinced by the 'forensic science of history' evidence that the resurrection of Jesus is the most probable explanation for the 'facts'.

I don't see how any supernatural explanation can be more probable than even the worst natural one, but I'm not a historian.

He seems to think that any historian who comes to a different conclusion about the resurrection has started from a position of absolutely denying the possibility of the supernatural (philosophical naturalism?).

As historians, are miracles considered valid explanations?

Often once a religion is replaced the gods will become the enemies of the next religion. For example Satan is based on Pan. Do historians think the titans existed before the pantheon?

[deleted]

The game and its developers pride themselves on the historical accuracy of armor, clothing, weapons, etc., but this has been striking me as odd. The player character, a lowly peasant, can flash some coin and have his way with a bathmaid during his cleaning (at least that's what it sounds like behind the black screen.)

Is this rooted in anything resembling historical accuracy for the period? Other characters go on about being a good Christian woman, and somehow I find it hard to believe that bath brothels fit in with that.

Furthermore, if it is realistic to the time, was this practice limited to Bohemia, Eastern Europe, or Europe as a whole?

The efforts of the Society of Jesus in the field of education seem to be frequently highlighted as one of their defining characteristics. Why are they noteworthy compared to those taken by other religious congregations? Are there any good books on the subject of Jesuit education?

On one of the outro screens of Crusader Kings II, it mentions that the house of Montfort was at its peak power when Simon the younger de Montfort, was de facto ruler of England. What is the context surrounding this, if it were true in the first place?

Now, we all heard about how brutal and deadly battle of Stalingrad was. Most of the accounts i ever came across, were from German soldiers though, not Russian. So i'm generally interested in their point of view. What i generally want to know is

a) How true are depictions of soldiers being herded like sheep into the German machine gun fire, most of them unarmed and all of them untrained?

b) Was there a certain separation between elite Soviet units made of experienced soldiers, which were highly effective in small-team fighting and weren't sacrificed as easily, and on the other side, expendable conscripts?

c) calculator says that on average 3000 Russian soldiers died daily in Stalingrad, for 150 days. That is an insane number for a city of few thousand buildings. Did most of the casualties happen in the city, or are those casualties actually referring to the whole front that included the whole ring around the Germans, in villages and fields, trenches west of Stalingrad?

e) What influenced Russian morale more, their patriotism or enforcement of order no.227?

I'm interested in things like pyjamas, clothes worn during exercise (for knights,) and clothes worn around the house when visitors were not expected, around the time of the Tudor period.

Pictures would obviously preferred, but I understand that most of these things probably would only have been depicted in literature, rather than paintings or other visual accounts.

I'm familiar with the broad outline of Napoleon's career, from his campaigns during the Republican Era to the Battle of the Nile, to the Consulate, to the foundation of the Napoleonic Empire.

From what I gather his greatest innovation was highly mobile artillery, though I don't quite grasp the implications of what that would have meant in 1800. Other than that, I'd be hard-pressed to explain anything about his success or career.

Is it accurate to call Napoleon one of history's great generals, and if so, how come?

Just started the book. On page 9, he describes how someone would gain entry into the Senate: every year 20 Senators “were elected to replace those who had died in the previous year or had become too poor to keep their seats.” Cicero “tops the poll” and becomes Senator, with official title of quaestor.

This all feels very different from what I’ve learned. I was under the impression the censers and magistrates CHOSE Senators based on their financial and social qualifications. I also know that once someone was elected as a magistrate, then they automatically became a Senator... maybe that’s where his confusion comes from?

Does Harris have this as wrong as it feels like? How accurate is the book on the whole? I feel like if he’s not going to get details like Senate membership correct, may not be worth reading.

[deleted]

In the US it's a pretty simple setup and has been for a long time. You do well in school, apply for a flight slot, get accepted, receive your commission, and after going through primary you're sent to your advanced trainer based on the needs of the service.

But how was it in the Soviet Union? How would a young man go about flying fighter jets in the Soviet Union? What would their early life look like and what was taken into account?

When I asked my dad what my grandfather did during WW2 he told me that my grandfather had been a cook in the Aleutian Islands. I was wondering if there are any books on that particular area of the Pacific Theatre. What would you recommend?

I hope to look up my grandfather’s service record one of these days to get a better idea of what he did (even if it was mostly standing behind a chow line).