Disclaimer: I’m worried that this might come across as some attempt to justify or argue for a fascist or cultural supremacist argument — but really I’m wondering if historians have ever pointed to specific cultural or social forces which could arguably have caused this “relative prolificness” (assuming that it really exists).

I know it’s impossible to quantify intellectual and cultural contribution and impact, but surely some type of case can be made for an outsized impact across the board on global culture and thought. Please correct me if I oversimplify with a few examples, but: Einstein started the atomic age, Freud began modern psychology, Marx permanently altered world history via Marxism, Nietzsche began existentialist thought, it seems like Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the most famous composers in history (and from what I gather, influenced music quite greatly)... There just seems to be a litany of contributions from German-speaking society (Austria, Germany, and the regions that would join into Germany) that literally revolutionized or founded whatever field they were part of.

I was thinking about the Monty Python Inquisition sketch. The most famous line is, of course, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Then I started wondering: is that statement in any way historically accurate? Did people know they were being charged with heresy or were they really caught unaware?

What was my life like before (and after) 1066? What did people think about the new royal court?

I'm mostly interested in the "average Joe", say a craftsman or merchant. Life for the Anglo-Saxon nobility (and clergy) would also be of interest and probably easier to access, though. Bonus points if you know anything about rural farm life.

I know that crosses are a Northern European thing, Nordic crosses are a Nordic thing and that the Union Jack is made from England and Scotland's flags combined but wondered whether the colour scheme from Iceland's was chosen because of the Union Jack?

Never considered it before but I remembered that Iceland's original colonisers were supposedly Viking Men and Irish Women, and that Ireland was obviously represented under the Union Jack for a long time. So maybe a Nordic flag with "Irish" colours would be fitting and perhaps that would be why?

Sorry for asking if the answer is no.

Progressivism was the response of Theodore Roosevelt and many others to the transformation of the economic landscape of the nation between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, America alone among the great nations escaped the rise of effective socialist political parties. However, what is the connection between the two events (like the rise of progressivism and the failure of socialism)?

From what I’ve learned about WWI, Dreadnoughts were incredibly expensive and therefore neither side wanted to risk them and thus there were not many large naval engagements. However, Naval warfare was a huge component of WWII, including Battleship engagements. What was the reason for this change in mentality?

[deleted]

Today, if you want to go to dinner with someone, you say that you want to meet at 6:00. What did you say before there were these kinds of things?

Specifically the time around 900 AD - 1300 AD in europe. What's the average, and what's the tallest?

[deleted]

Note 'Italian': I think it's fair to say he was a big advocate of Piedmontese power (although calling this nationalism may be a stretch).

Basically - is there anything to suggest Cavour had genuine sympathies with Italian nationalism? Or was he just pursuing a policy of Piedmontese territorial and political aggrandisement?

From my readings in this sub and also on /r/badhistory, it seems like the usual reasons(like Barbarians at the Gates) for the Fall of the (Western) Roman Empire are inaccurate. There are a ton of proposed reasons and the truth is probably a mixture.

However, what I am interested is the history of these reasons. What reasons would the historians in the past would have given?

Hi all. Specifically I'm looking for primary sources as well as archaeological reports on Frankish and Anglo-Saxon military equipment. Can anyone lend a hand?

I am Currently reading Robert Harris's novel Munich about the events leading up to the Munich conference. Early in the book Prime Minister Chamberlain is being briefed by the 3 chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air force about the escalating crisis regarding Hitlers ultimatum to the Czech Government. The briefing can be summed up as follows:

• All three branches of the British military have major problems. They are using outdated equipment, are under sized (the Raf is said to have only 6 divisions of modern fighters) and suffer from technical problems. They go on to say that it will take at least a year to be ready to go to war with Germany.

• That although the French are serious about going to war to defend the Czechs their war plan consists almost entirely of defense and a few token raids with no actual plan to challenge Germany

• That Czechoslovakia would be quickly crushed by Germany if it were to invade, That it's defense system is aimed almost entirely at the borders Germany had preunification with Austria and as such as a massive gap with Germany's new border. There is also questions of whether the Slovak population will fight an invasion.

Given this briefing the advice is to avoid war at basically any cost. How true are the details listed above? Could Britain, France and Czechoslovakia have won a war against Germany in 1938? Given how bad a reputation appeasement has was it the least bad option available?

In the classical era, how did Greek and Roman scholars know the Earth was round? What kind of evidence and proofs did they use?

And did medieval writers use different ones, or just repeat the same ones?