Hello,

In order to be as transparent with you as possible, I feel I should inform you guys that I'm studying history at a university level. It is, however, with a wish of improving my own understanding on the subject I ask this question, and it is not related to any school assignment or project. My problem is as follows (I've added some context to my question. The question itself is italicised):

Harald Fairhair was, according to Moseng et al.^1 , son of Halfdan Svarte, king of Opplandene and perhaps Vestfold. This would tie Harald Fairhair to the eastern parts of Norway, and the consensus among older historians placed Harald here. Among the oldest was Snorre Sturlason, whom I presume my own sources are based upon. We also believe that Harald Fairhair's mother was Ragnhild Haraldsdatter, daughter of Harald Gullskjegg, king of Sogn. This is where modern historians typically place Harald Fairhair, and this notion is backed by Haraldskvedet, possibly written by Harald's own hirdskald, in which it is indicated that Harald was a "sea-king" (sjøkonge)^2 , which would most likely place him on the west coast of Norway. Add to that Glymdråpa, which describes him as being a great viking-chief^2 , and it would seem that the strongest sources available support that Harald was, in fact, a king of the west.

My problem appears when I proceed to read about "who fought at Hafrsfjord?". Here my textbook again uses Haraldskvedet as a source, but now to support that Harald was an "eastland-king" (østlandskonge) fighting other eastmen^2 .

Was Harald a king of both the eastern Opplandene, and of the western Sogn? Did he inherit both his father's and his grandfather's kingdom?

I should add that I don't expect a direct answer, and that I appreciate any answer that can point me in the direction of understanding this subject better.

Thank you for your time.

Sources:

^1 Moseng et al. "Norsk historie 750-1537". Universitetsforlaget, 2007. Page 61.

^2 Moseng et al. "Norsk historie 750-1537". Universitetsforlaget, 2007. Page 62.

I just started my first semester of college and I'm going to be a history major. I really gotten into the habit of listening to podcast recently while I'm doing other things so I kind a like to get ahead on my studies and I also just fine history very interesting. Can someone please recommend some good podcasts that discussed history to some degree?

Estimates based on key features of the film - including geographic landmarks, government structure, technological progress, linguistic terms, and religious references - place Disney's Aladdin as set in Central Asia (such as modern day Iraq or Uzbekistan) in the 900s AD. In this film, two major side-characters are the animal sidekicks of the protagonist and the villain- Abu and Iago. Their species are generally identified as a gray langur monkey and a scarlet macaw, however neither of these species are endemic to the proposed region. The gray langur genus is native to the Indian subcontinent while the scarlet macaw is much farther away, ranging from Mexico to Brazil. Would there have been trade routes, however distant, between these areas and the proposed region of the setting that could explain the presence of these two animals so far from their native lands?

If I'm not mistaken, the reasoning behind the internationally agreed upon accords on chemical weapons were its indiscriminacy and the particularly cruel and painful deaths and wounds they caused. Perfectly reasonable. However why was this logic not applied to flamethrowers? They too made their debut in the First World War, and were used widely on the western front (also the eastern? forgive me I'm not very familiar with those campaigns) for tactical reasons.

I find it very difficult to imagine a more painful, indiscriminate, inhumane death than immolation, but as far as I know there were no such international bans in the Interwar period, and they continued to see extensive use in the Second World War and even Vietnam. I know white phosphorous does have some restrictions today but there are still several nations that have confirmed supplies of them. (I don't know when white phosphorous rounds and bombs were "invented" and when these agreements where made, so this may fall under the 20 year rule)

Why are chemical weapons pretty universally reviled, but incendiary weapons remained widely in use?

Additionally, why was the American Medical Association so aggressively opposed to his nationalized healthcare plan in in the early 50s?

In this work, the two male leads, Proteus and Valentine have a long lasting, intense bond. While some modern speculators have posited a homosexual relationship, the different but intense love they have for their respective female love interests is seen as strong evidence against that by most analyses. But assuming a purely platonic friendship, it is still incredibly strong and intense, with them willing to exchange wives as a gesture of goodwill in restoring their friendship. Although this is a work of dramatic fiction, would close friendships between men in this period be anywhere near that strong and intense emotionally? Especially if these friends had known each other for most of their lives?

These gigantic ships had millions of dollars poured into them and not all of them ended up on the bottom of the ocean. Clearly they're not still ferrying people across the Atlantic now. Were they pulled apart and used to make new ships? Did they end up docked somewhere for all eternity? What happened to them?

I've heard that a large percentage of men were in fraternal groups such as the freemasons back in the 50's however, membership in groups like this aren't so common today. What happened to change this?

During WW2 when Britain was subjected to air raids from Germany, there were some planes that did not return. What I am interested to know is what became of the deceased who fell on British soil. Were they just buried nearby where they fell in established British cemeteries, or were special cemeteries opened just for them? I assume they were identified and marked if identifiable and the Red Cross notified per terms of the Genevia Convention. Was this but the end of their stories? In the post war were there any requests from Germany to bring them home? Are their burial sites, if in Britain, maintained by someone equivalent to Commonwealth War Graves for those Germans? Are there differences regards the upkeep of graves in the countries of former foes for the Germans who died? Was the Italian situation any different? TIA

I was a student of modern European history (1500s-1900s) so my exposure to the medieval side was more introduction, and way of explaining the context of the start of the modern era.

Being Catholic in my childhood but never having the concepts explained properly, I am curious about certain parts of Catholicism which were never explained to me. The part I most found fascinating was monasticism.

Are there general survey works of medieval monasticism which would explain the major influential orders and also give a context to their formation?

Bonus if it goes through their history to modern day, as I know many of the orders survive to this day, and a history of their more modern times would awesome.

Edit: Found this: Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages by C.H. Lawrence Would this be a good place to start?

Like the Rome thread, but for Greece. I've already asked elsewhere, but thought I'd get your take on it.

Listening to Dan Carlin's podcasts, this question arose in my head. Assuming that the first wave of attack in trench warfare would be the one with the highest casualties, I suspect that few will volunteer for the dubious honor of being the first over the top. How did commanders decide who had to go first? Did they draw lots, did they rotate the troops, did they send the young soldiers first so as not to waste the experienced troops?

Was there one optimum way to decide this or did each nation or unit have their own procedure?

[deleted]

I'm interested in the gypsis situation during their captivity and in the reasons used for killing them.

Hi there! I am currently writing my honours thesis about Venetian history around the 12th-13th centuries and in all the sources I've read so far, stopping for winter or wintering at a port city is everywhere yet never elaborated on. Although not relevant to my topic, I keep reading about it and I am curious as to why this happened. Perhaps I am being completely ignorant and the simple answer was that it was too cold to travel, but what is the reason for the ceasing of travel across the Mediterranean? For example, during the Fourth Crusade Enrico Dandolo supposedly had planned to winter at Zara/Zadar and the city was subsequently sacked as a deal to help pay the crusader's debts.

I've added some example quotes from Donald M. Nicol's 'Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations' - for reference the first quote has a date attached ~1218 and the second quote is supposedly discussing around the collapse of the Latin Empire in 1261.

Page 268: The sailing seasons where known as 'mude' and the term was used to describe the convoys or caravans. Sailing time from Venice to Constantinople was usually about eight weeks. Caravans set out from Venice to trade in Romania twice a year, one in spring, the other in August. The first 'muda' would come back in the autumn. The second would winter in Romania and return the following Easter or even later. Many of the ships would would load or unload wares on the mainland or island ports of the Aegean on their way to and from Constantinople. But they would try to avoid sailing in the winter months.

The text never goes into detail as to why they would stop sailing during winter which puzzles me (and this has been a reoccurring thing in all the books that I have looked at for my thesis), because on the next page it talks about how the invention of the compass and new developments of sailing techniques resulted in ships being capable of sailing the seas all year round. Is the answer to my question rather that the methods of sailing by stars or following the coastline being obstructed by bad weather conditions?

Page 267: It came at a time, however, when new developments in sailing technique were beginning to have their effect. The invention of the compass soon after the middle of the thirteenth and fourteenth century and improvements in the steering mechanism of ships revolutionised the art and scope of navigation... Navigation by compass made it possible for ships to sail in cloudy or overcast weather, without being afraid of losing sight of land. Convoys from Venice could set out in the winter months, in January or February. The earlier pattern of 'mude' leaving twice a year was changed. The second convoy could leave in the summer and come back at the beginning of winter without having to winter abroad as had formerly been the rule.

It then goes on to say:

The introduction of the stern-post rudder meant that bigger ships could be built and held on course when at sea. The invention of compass bearings led to improvements in map-making. Charts or portolans could be drawn showing the position of the main harbours and islands of the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. The earliest were drawn on vellum in Venice and Genoa. Such portolan charts, or compass charts, were a great advance on the earlier portolani, or guides for sailors, since they gave much more accurate and reliable information on the coastlines and staging posts. These improvements, though they took many years to perfect, lowered the cost of long-distance transport and made sailing a full-time profession.

Is it simply a combination of earlier sailing techniques relying on favourable visibility conditions that would be impeded during the winter months rather than say, my initial answer of it being too cold to sail or the seas being too rough to safely sail on? Apologies if this answer is a bit obvious, I have very little knowledge on sailing and maritime history. Thank you in advance!

I haven't personally reviewed many cases of Nazi war criminals on trial in any depth, but I think it's reasonable to assume that many (if not all) claimed that they had no choice but to follow orders. But in reality, if they really did refuse to participate, would they have just been given some menial job in an office or something instead? Or did they really have no choice but to do as they were told?

If the latter is correct, then why were non-high-ranking members tried guilty? I doubt that was the case then, and I'm probably answering my own question, but I'm just really curious because I see many people making argument against, for example, putting a former 90 year old Nazi guard on trial for war crimes.

Thanks!