Before William became king, how did England and France view one another? Were they diplomatic connections between the two kingdoms, such as royal marriages, or did both countries generally stay out of the other's business?

After WW2 was over, did any of the German military reveal the actual reason that they paused and allowed the British army to escape to fight another day ? The standard reason is Hitler was hoping for a peace treaty with England,was this actually confirmed by any high level Germans ?

[deleted]

I Recently watched a documentary about trench life/management and its briefly shown that a German messenger cycles in full view of a group of British soldiers without any reaction from them.

Was it because he was recognised as a messenger? Or since it was only one (unarmed) man that he wasn't worth killing?

I understand that it could be effective to kill a messenger (especially to disrupt a command) but why weren't more killed?

Irish history has always fascinated me and I have studied it up to degree level however of all the various episodes in modern Irish history I always find the Irish Civil war, its causes and aftermath, the most perplexing.

Most perplexing of all I find Eamon de Valera's leadership of the Irish Free State in the aftermath of the war. How is it that the leader of the loosing faction in the civil war could have attained the leadership of a state which he had been completely opposed to the existence of?

How did he maintain any political and moral credibility after having personally contributed, in no small way, to the outbreak of the civil war, how was it that senior members of the Pro-Treaty faction failed to sideline him, and how did he personally justify his change of stance towards the Free State and the partition of Ireland?

Any insight regarding this topic or any recommendations for reading on this question would be most appreciated.

I understand that writing died out after the fall of Rome - but the church was always the exception. I would think that the Pope would have at least 1 chronicler in his "court" at all times - has anything like that survived?

So I've been doing a little research as i'm considering trying to write an alternative history novel in which Carausius' independent romano-britain survives. In doing so I've been researching the late Roman navy but most of the information I've found seems to be focused on earlier periods. Did the Roman's continue to favour boarding actions? How extensive was the use of ship mounted artillery and if so what kinds of engines and ammunition was most common? How important was archers, slingers, javelins throwers ect? How might the roman navy developed had it lasted longer and had maintained a reasonable amount of funding.

Currently watching the mini series, The Pacific, which made me realize the climate and terrain the Marines fought in during WW2 seem very similar to that of Vietnam. As well as the guerilla warfare and ambush tactics they encountered by the Japanese which the Vietcong also used.

[deleted]

Does anyone know what the origins are behind the word libertarian? I've seen it claimed by people and groups on the right and the left.

For example, Murray Bookchin said it came from Elisee Reclus when the word anarchism had been banned in France. I've seen it used by Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and others. I've seen some writings from Murray Rothbard where he intentionally co-opted it.

Anyone?

I've recently been watching Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States. While I find the program entertaining and educational, I'm a bit skeptical of some of Stone's conclusions regarding the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union in the final months of World War II.

In the series, Stone places much of the blame for the degradation of relations between the two super powers on Harry Truman's presidency and hardcore anti-communists within the CIA. He characterizes the Americans as making unreasonable demands on the Soviets regarding the split of influence in post-war Europe and specifically calls out the Truman administration for being unrealistic about Russian national security in regards to the Soviets wanting influence over post-war Poland. Additionally, he characterizes the Soviets as being loyal allies during the war, citing their timely invasion of Japan, which was actually ahead of the date that they promised. He goes on to describe the United States' use of the atomic bomb as a tactic to scare and dominate the Soviets politically, and later blasts Dwight Eisenhower as a brinksman who routinely threatened nuclear war against soviet-backed communist revolutionaries in the post-war proxy fighting, which escalated tensions and pushed the world towards the "mutually-assured destruction" status quo which still exists today.

My question is: Are these characterizations reasonable? Could relations between the United States and Russia have been substantially different if we had taken a less hard-line stance against the Soviets and their communist satellites after World War II? When I look at the world today, I see so much suffering and strife that can be directly linked back to decisions made during the cold war by both sides. But it isn't clear to me if the cold war could have been avoided in the first place. Could it have been? Or were the United States and the Soviet Union destined to be adversaries regardless of how they behaved during the last weeks of the war?

Is it just an unwillingness to cooperate? Or just not seen as necessary?

I'm of course talking about the events/the timeframe of the movie.

Regardless of whether the events in the movie are depicted accurately or not; how come Hitler did not attack when the 400'000 british men (and all the french around) were basically sitting ducks?

I just finished watching one of my favorite movies, Gettysburg (1993). After one of the scenes where you meet a British officer, Fremantle, who is accompanying confederate General Longstreet to see how the South handles its armies; I got to thinking about today's world conflicts and how all these countries continually try to influence others when they see opportunity (ex. Syria).

My question(s) is: during the American Civil War, were there any other countries, like Great Britain, attempting to meddle in the U.S conflict? How did the world react to hearing of the war or did they even care at all since the world was so much more disconnected? *Side note if its allowed: is the movie itself historically accurate?
Thanks all

When looking around, most information on medieval trade tends to be about the big intercontinental trade across the silk road.

But I'm wondering about the total trade, so including trade in between European countries and inside countries themselves.

What was the mainstay of the normal, average merchant. Like, was it food, raw materials (wood, stone, metal), luxury goods?

I'm interested in any period or country that roughly corresponds to 'medieval Europe'. As long as it's about the total volume of trade, and not one specific trade route or trade good.

Why did they take values and ideals from the Greeks instead of say, the nearby Carthaginians or the Egyptian civilization?