I'm trying to make the distinction between the Church as a religious institution and the Empire that it was weaved with at the time. So far, I've found some secondary monographs (especially one by Steven Runciman called "The Eastern Schism") and a primary source that may be helpful is the Alexiad. However, I want to paint a fuller picture. I know primary sources are limited, but maybe there are chronicles of the Orthodox layperson's perspective? I also can't find anything about the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas III Grammatikos (other than his background). Most importantly, I like to find and read journal articles, but perhaps I am searching too narrow.

Thanks for your help!

Hey guys - I've been gathering information about my clan name - "Kerr" - for a while now and one of the most commonly accepted origins for the last name is that it stems from the old norse "Kjárr" - Meaning marsh dweller (we lived in heavily wooded border areas).

I was hoping to convert the Old Norse to Younger Futhark runes but most guides and translators seem to be about converting English to runes rather than old norse - the guide I did find wasn't very beginner friendly and required an intermediate knowledge to use - I can't find much information on accented letters like á for example.

I know there are a few common rules to keep in mind, such as the same symbol never appearing twice in a row etc.

can anyone give me a hand here? thanks again dudes.

When did it become societally expected of women to shave their legs and armpits? How did it start? Was it initially seen as indecent, like how shaved genitalia still is seen in parts of the world? When were "women's" razors first introduced commercially?

I read a long time ago that a man in either ancient greece or rome lived on a mountain or pillar for many many decades. I remember reading this in the guiness world records.

I know it sounds like a stupid and entirely ignorant question, but as someone who is very interested in Medieval history and hoping to make a living learning/teaching it, I thought it'd be prudent to ask regardless. However, I'll be honest, that's not the only reason I ask.

Recently I've been posed with the argument that the European "style" of warfare during the Middle Ages was generally pathetic compared to the "style(s)" used in other regions, and was overall really ineffective against "superior" foreign tactics/strategy/skill. Most notably were the comparisons to the Mongol Invasions.

Furthermore, they claim that European knights of the period were nothing but a joke; guys riding horse with exceedingly heavy armor used for a extremely limited role on the battlefield and used to scare and kill peasants everywhere else. When faced with foreign forces[Vikings(lol), Muslims, Mongols, etc. as per the argument's examples], they were brought down handily.

I consider both arguments to be entirely nonsensical and might perhaps be fueled by a bit of bias(he notably says we when speaking about how eastern forces easily dealt with knights), but in trying to answer the former, I don't want to just pull things out of my ass. I could just say "that's not true," but then my counterargument would be just as presumably baseless as the original argument. Additionally, while I'd consider myself more learned on the subject since the time I've gotten into Medieval history, my knowledge is still extremely limited. I don't know of all that many battles during the period, even less so if we're talking about the time during the Mongol invasions. So while I think his arguments aren't valid, I don't think I'd perform any service to anyone if I "debunked" them with vague and possibly unfounded examples of why European medieval military tactics and strategy *didn't" suck.

So if possible, could anyone here help me out, sources n' all? Anything about battles or medieval European tactics/strategy that might disprove the points? Or is my opponent right about this? I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong so as long as what's being presented in opposition is well-grounded.

I'm fascinated by this story and want to know more. Anything helps...

I will make one thing clear from the get go: this question is asked from the perspective of an atheist. And based on my world view, I am pretty certain of two things:

1. Pope Francis is very much a real person

2. The existence of the first pope, St Peter, is debatable

However; there is an alleged unbroken chain of 264 other popes, connecting the two men through history. So my question is this: Who is the earliest "historical" pope, meaning the first pope that we know was an historical figure?

I know there are instances of older men marrying young girls (though from what I understand it wasn't as common as thought) such as Margaret Beaufort marrying Edmund Tudor when she was 12 and he was 24, but was the opposite true as well?

Hello historians! Today in class I mentioned that the first man on the Moon was Neil Armstrong. To my surprise, I was quickly corrected by about half of my classmates (about 10) and the professor, who told me that I was, in fact, wrong; the USSR had actually sent a man to the moon a year before the US. Being a space nerd, I was shocked by my apparent basic misunderstanding of history, so after class I asked about it. One of the students told me that in reality, the Soviets had sent a man to the surface of the moon in a capsule, but that he never actually did any EVA- and the US government hid it from us to keep us patriotic and happy. I've looked around but I can't find any information on a Soviet manned lunar mission predating ours. This seemed odd to me, as one would think that if the government were hiding these things from us, they'd also hide the Venera missions, when the Soviets sent something to another planet for the first time. Am I a complete idiot or is this some conspiracy theory? Thanks!

How was warfare of Native Americans fought and what was it fought over pre Colombian times.Were they fought like european wars just with lesser technology?Or were natives to spread out to focus on warfare for resources and territory?

I'm watching HBOs Rome which is supposed to be a far more accurate depiction of Rome compared to most other media portraying it, and in a scene where the character Atia is sacrificing a bull to the gods, her and an altar are beneath where the bulls throat is cut and she is drenched in its blood. Is this a real thing they did? What did they believe the benefit of this was? Was it to a specific god or gods?

As stated above each student battles one another in a tournament system that uses units from a roster. Units cost different based on a variety of stats including morale armor and unit type, as well as any special weapons they might carry. I.e. Bows and ranged weapons add 20 points to the overall costs

My army for this class is the ostrogoths, and I am fairly certain they had slingers based on other Germanic tribes including the visigoths. I've read several scholarly articles as well as 2 books. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like the early goths cared much for their scholars. :(

I.e., would a kid in the 18th century who's playing with a stick and pretending it's a musket pretend to pull the hammer to full-cock, pour the powder in the barrel, shove the ball down the barrel with the ramrod, etc.

This is obviously a very broad question. I imagine it must have been very hard to maintain control of a hostile populace before the invention of radios, internal combustion engines, aerial surveillance and accurate maps.

But the Romans did so anyway, even if they had to spend decades fighting a guerilla war in parts of Spain and Israel. Hell, it seems like Caesar pacified Gaul mostly by fighting a series of conventional battles of the course of a decade. How did the Romans get the locals to buy-in afterwards?