Did Wotan have one eye and two ravens? Did Thunor have a magic hammer? Did the Gods fight giants? Was Loki a thing at all (I can't think of the Anglo-Saxon version of Loki)? Did Anglo-Saxons believe in Hel and Valhalla?

/u/hborrgg asked a question a couple of weeks ago on the useage of spears and shields, and I've been trying to provide a medieval perspective ever since. This was already on my mind because it relates to a question on the Battle of Hastings I've been trying to answer for a couple of months, but I haven't made much headway. In spite of the considerable amount written on how Ancient Greek hoplites fought down to an individual level and some acrimonious debate over whether cavalry or infantry dominated the medieval battlefield, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion as to how the medieval footsoldier fought. The closest I've come to the subject is Verbruggen's analysis of the psychology of medieval cavalry and footsoldiers.

Now, due to the differences in shield design and quite possibly also spear and sword design, research into the hoplite phalanx is of limited use when considering the medieval period (perhaps excepting Van Wees and his adherents, but I haven't had a chance to read him yet), which is why I'm wondering if perhaps there's a study or a book that I've missed which deals with the topic I'm interested in.

Since the Nazi administration revolved around Hitler's deputies acting based on their interpretation of the "Fuhrer's Will", did his deputies (e.g. Himmler and Heydrich) persecute the Jews more than what Hitler had in mind?

Furthermore, were there instances of mass persecution/extermination during the implementation of the Final Solution which Hitler was unaware of/ not responsible?

I thought of this question after reading this excerpt from "Hitler's War" by David Irving:

"In October , even as Himmler was disclosing to privileged audiences of SS generals and gauleiters that Europe’s Jews had been systematically murdered, Hitler was still forbidding liquidations – e.g., of the Italian Jews in Rome – and ordering their internment instead. (This order his SS also disobeyed.) In July , overriding Himmler’s objections, he ordered that Jews be bartered for foreign currency or supplies; there is some evidence that like contemporary terrorists he saw these captives as a potential asset, a means whereby he could blackmail his enemies. Wholly in keeping with his character, when Hitler was confronted with the facts he took no action to rebuke the guilty; he would not dismiss Himmler as Reichsführer SS until the last day of his life."

Thank you! If I have missed out anything important, please let me know (This is my first post on this sub)

As an independent republic, the Commonwealth of Vermont adopted a constitution on 8 July 1777 which prohibited slavery for adults. In 1791, after being admitted to the Union, it became the first State of the Union to abolish slavery. Why, in Chapter I, Section I (below) is the law only applicable to over-21s? Were children to remain in bondage?

"Vermont Constitution of 1777". Chapter I, Section I: State of Vermont. Retrieved 3 October 2016. Therefore, no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave, or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one years; nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent, after they arrive to such age, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like."

I've been interested in learning about the Spanish Civil War lately and I was wondering if someone could recommend some books. I read Homage to Catalonia a long time ago, but now I'm interested in reading memoirs from that time by Spaniards, not foreigners who came to Spain to fight.

More specifically, I'm looking for eyewitness accounts of events in the Second Republic, including but not limited to the war years, and also memoirs written by Spanish republicans after 1939, either living in Spain or abroad. I'd prefer English translations if those are available, but I'm also open to books in Spanish.

While primary sources are vital to historical research, sometimes few written records exist. How do historians approach a research project where there are very limited primary sources?

I research African American history of the region around the museum I worked at for the past two summers. I'd like to write a book for the museum interpreters (and possibly sell it in the gift shop) once my research is complete. The museum is great, but little attention has been paid to African American history, and now I see why. There aren't primary sources! It has been nearly impossible to find primary sources, particularly from the African Americans I am studying. Records from the region were lost or never saved. The state archives has little to work with. (I am also limited by my own mobility and budget. I'm a recent college grad and not being paid for this project anymore, so I cannot travel to national or other state archives at this point.)

I'd like to learn historians' practices and accepted methods for overcoming little to no primary sources for a particular topic so I can produce a historically sound product. This story deserves to be explored and told by the museum in the most effective, accurate manner possible. Thank you.

I have an antique orthopedic item I acquired and I'm trying to date it. I was able to find the imprint "Orthopedic C... (can't make out the rest), then "Fitchburgh MASS".

A google search turns up nothing. Is there a way to find old business registers online anywhere?

Like. I imagine that the America’s also has some horrible diseases that were really deadly to the invaders but not to the natives.

Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama

All other issues aside, wouldn't Native American weapons have been more advantageous? Sure, Europeans were bringing guns over, but they were slow to load, inaccurate, and their range wasn't great. Not to mention they were loud and generated a ton of smoke.

Wouldn't a bow be a better weapon? Especially since (as far as I know) Natives were more likely to use guerrilla tactics. Seems like guns would have almost been a disadvantage.

Were there decisive battles won (pre revolver/lever-action/what-have-you guns) because guns were superior firepower?

[deleted]

I had this recent conversation with a friend. He seems to believe that torture works as a method to extract information, because during world war two spies were given cyanide capsules to use upon capture. I wonder however if the cyanid capsules were given to them because they would be killed after torture. I know this question could delve into speculation, but any help to shed light on this would be appreciated.

And did their enormous losses in the early stages of the war derail those plans? I once read a hypothesis that if Hitler hadn’t taken the strategic initiative Stalin may have had time to mobilize enough forces to overrun Europe.

More specifically, the claim that "China", in some form or another, has existed as a country uninterruptedly for around 5,000 years.

What separates the two terms? It seems like the last "empire" I can think of being relevant would be either the Ottomans or the British empire. Now everything is a country. There's no "French Empire" or "Russian Empire" in terms of language. How did this occur?