The Vikings interacted with both the Christian and Muslim worlds, and since the bulk of the Jewish diaspora settled in Europe and the Middle East, it stands to reason that Vikings must have raided or traded with them on occasion. Do we have records of any such contact, what the two cultures thought of one another, etc.?

What is the significance of it not being ratified? Why bother ratifying it if the 13th already passed?

Disclaimer: From what I know there is a general lack of knowledge regarding the actual "juicy details" of battle in the medieval period. If there isn't enough information about this to answer I understand.

This question is asking about the details of a field battle in this area and period from initiation (archers?, taunts?, formations?) to end (rout?, surrender?, execution?). This includes things like how & when cavalry and infantry would've been most commonly deployed against the enemy in this area and period.

I'm an American, and also an Anglophile. Like everyone else, I've become obsessed with the musical Hamilton, and I started to wonder which side I would have come down on if I'd been alive at the time. We don't hear much over here about the reasons for remaining a Loyalist. What, in your view, are the best reasons for an American colonist to remain a Loyalist leading up to and during the Revolution?

I have been watching WW2 in colour and in S1E5 the narrator stated that the Singapore garrison of 100,000 men surrendered with a force of 90,000 men against a force a third of the size . What caused such a dreadfully weak defence ? presumably the soldiers would be professional well trained soldiers due to where they were positioned ? The British seemed to fold pathetically weakly in the region .

Were they Celtic, Germanic, neither? Were they sedentary or nomadic? In general how did they compare to the people living in Gaul on the other side of the channel?

So in 1070, there was a rebellion against the new king of England, William the bastard, by his Anglo-Saxon subjects. The king of Denmark, Svend II had a claim to the throne of England, based on the fact that his grandfather was King Sweyn Forkbeard of England. Were the Anglo-Saxons and the Danish fighting together just because they both wanted to depose William the bastard, or did the Anglo-Saxons actually decide that they'd rather be ruled by Danes than Normans, and that they wanted to help Svend II claim England?

Also, it says in Wikipedia that Svend II actually had a rather favourable position in this invasion, so why would he decide to leave for a bit of money? Also, why couldn't he have just taken the money then not actually left or something? I mean he is a Viking after all, isn't he?

After looking at the other candidates for the English throne, Harold Godwinesson has no blood relation to any previous King of England, Harald Hardrade is only going between old promises between Hardecnut and Magnus and William the bastard is, unsurprisingly, a bastard. It seems as if, apart from Edgar Ætheling, Svend II is the obvious choice when it comes to inheritance. I mean it's not like Sweyn Forkbeard had a strong claim to the throne or anything, being just a Viking invader, but it's better than literally nothing.

In the spirit of Hanukkah, I'd figure I would ask. Did the Maccabees form an independent Jewish kingdom? Were they defeated by another foe?

What impact did the development of cotton fabrics and their more widespread adoption have on fashion? Was there an immediate switch from wool or other fibres? In particular, was there a backlash against cotton at any stage?

I’ve asked this here before with no answer.

With like 80-90% working in the farms, how did farming survive by loosing such a large workforce to factories? At the time I don't believe tractors were available so what happened there?

[deleted]

Of course, they blamed other political enemies too, like the bolsheviks and whatnot. Proponents argued that these "enemies" betrayed the German army and the country, but how exactly did these "enemies" accomplish that? Did the Nazis have any proof?

First off, i don't know much about military tactics, but from my laymans perspective surely the whole point of having infantry/cavalry/archers etc in an army is that they all have strengths and weaknesses on there own, but combined they make up for each others deficits. So how did the Mongols rely so heavily on Cavalry and still be successful.

[deleted]

Article 1 Section 9.2 of the Confederate Constitution says: Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

Article 1 Section 9.4 says: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I was hoping someone could explain what both of these mean, I'm confused to their actual purpose/what they accomplish. Hope I did this correctly!

Either in full or partially. Saw a picture of it this morning and it just looks like prime real estate.