I know other cultures have different culinary traditions but eggs seem to be a huge part of early day meals in Western Europe and I was wondering when that came to be.

I guess that because many countries were trying to fix the situation, wars that were going on stopped or paused for some time. Did it stop or pause any wars, and if so, which?

As the title says, what is the most efficient way of evaluating a secondary source to determine its veracity? The first thing that comes to mind is reading critical reviews of the book in question, but I'm not sure, so I'll happily take any advice proffered on learning how to do research.

My university's new semester has just begun, and I'm to do an undergrad-level research project. Primary sources are required, obviously, but of course I'm allowed to use secondary sources as a jumping off point. If it matters, I'm leaning toward the topic of terrorism in Renaissance-Reformation era England. I've found a book, God's Traitors, by Jessie Childs, but my knowledge of the era is limited to one survey I've taken on pre-modern England, so I'm not well-equipped to assess her take on the subject matter.

Thanks in advance!

Did they all go through the turret hatch?

Hi, I’m a University Student. I did my undergraduate dissertation on Mass-Observation looking at post-war hopes for British civilians. I found that prior to the Beveridge Report that there was a lot of consensus for social changes for social security along a number of lines (can elaborate if interested). I am now doing a project comparing postwar hopes to specifically educational change between 1945 and 1950. Especially the Butler Act (1944). I would like opinions, hypotheses, book/article recommendations or even a discussion.

I’m doing this for my MA dissertation and am interested, love the internet for learning and want to see.

I have got a lot of resources already but wanted to see if any others can be shared

Sorry for the long question (?)

Is there something that prevents sellers from scamming people or not fullfilling contracts in the underworld if contracts even exists. Is it just pure trust and honor?

I'm gonna skip the introduction and get to the point of this post. The Chinese traded Silk to Europe for I'm not sure how long but long enough that the Europeans couldn't live without it. What did Europe have that the far east wanted in return?

Why don't we treat the Chinese Dynasties like the Roman ones and just call them China and only name the actual dynasty when referring to the rulers. I know these dynasties weren't always united but we still refer to eastern and western Rome as the Roman Empire. Should we not refer to the Song dynasty for instance as Song China? The reason I say this is because giving the different names for their countries gives an illusion that there was not a continuous china as a country/empire when in reality it was mainly only the rulers and their specific territory which changed.

So I have been reading on cavalry a little bit, Including a couple of answers from Iphikrates, but I am still at a bit of a loss when it comes to understanding cavalry tactics.

I read the rules, but I'm not sure if I can lead the question, if I can; I have read claims of particularly the Hetairoi fighting on a wedge formation and leading charges, but them having a sort of throwing lance and a short sword kind of lead me to think it would be more of like a light skirmishing cavalry unit. And I am not convinced on the effectiveness of a charge of a unit of cataphracts or hetairoi without them having stirrups.

Pondering this question and I can't seem to find any real information on it.

Once war was officially declared, what happened to diplomatic staff in affected countries? For instance, were diplomats stationed in the British embassy in Berlin allowed leave and return to the UK? (And vice versa). Further, what happened to American diplomats stationed in Japan upon the attacks on pearl harbour?

Moreover, during the war period, could diplomatic staff travel freely between hostile nations? For instance, was there terms set so a British diplomat could hypothetically travel to Berlin on official business to discuss the war between the 2 countries?

When I was young, Czar seemed to be the popular spelling but recently Tsar is used. What is the reason for the change and does it signify any other deeper shifts in historians’ understanding?

Does the annulment of Anne Boleyn's marriage mean that legally she was "never" married to Henry VIII and that she "never" legally was Queen of England?

I read abit about this for a quiz, but I wanted to be sure I understood it correctly! :)

[deleted]

How much of the "old faiths" were still around in the 13th century? Was there "witch hunts" for secret pagans like the Spanish's hunt for secret Muslims/Jews during the (unexpected) Spanish Inquisition?

In Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode where he asks "what if" questions about 1066, he describes a proto-knight called a "Briton 'meelite'".

I've never heard the word "meelite" before and have been trying to google it, but none of the spellings I've tried have been correct. Can someone tell me what the spelling of this word is and any other common terms for knights in the various stages of their development? I'm very curious to learn more about the evolution knights went through until they disappeared.

Thanks in advance.

Where did the word "Italy" even come from?

Specifically sources about Octavian, when he was young, before the civil war and before or during his initial rise to power, as opposed to him as the first emperor.

• What is the first mentioning of Octavian of the Julii in ancient Roman writing?
• How do we know his family and extended family, and how do we know his relation to Gaius Julius Cesar?
• What sources show us that it was Octavian who received Julius Cesar's wealth?
• What sources confirm his first official titles and duties?