I have seen some talk about the use of Bill hooks, but am not sure if they were stand alone infantrymen or just weapons used by other soldiers like the Longbow men.

I've read several articles (though admittedly not any full historical papers) on Pope Joan, with some saying she existed but never gave birth during mass, while others say she never existed at all and was used to insult the papacy. Is there any truth to the stories though? Was there perhaps a female bishop or cardinal that passed themselves off as men?

And what did Duke Conan II have to say about it all? Surely he wasn't overly happy about his subjects going off to fight for William?

So Italy was only united in a single state in the 19th century? Did an Italian nation already exist by then or was that preceded by unification? Did people even consider the entire peninsulia as 'Italy'? Or just the historic region of Italia?

Are there any renderings or descriptions that can visualize Ancient Egypt climate and geography?

Was it more lush? How, why?

Anything you can tell me, I'd be happy to hear.

So, my question is kind of complicated to put down but during the early Roman conquest of Britannia there were quite a few tribes located all over the south of the isle but then they spend about 350 years under Roman governance (along with the putting down of at least two major rebellions). These tribes were then displaced westwards by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.

This brings me to my point: Were the "Bretons" spared the conquest (also was it genocide, assimilation or aristocratic takeover that led to the Bretons no longer existing in the greater part of southern Britian?) in Cornwall and Wales a hodge podge of all the tribes mixed together or was there a cultural continuance of Dummonoi to Breton to Cornish in Cornwall (and the same in Wales though I can't remember the tribal names in Brittannia Secunda)?

I suppose it is mildly related to the 11th century.

In Polish education, it is strongly underlined that Mieszko I was a Książę (Duke, Prince) and not a Król (King) like his son, Bolesław, who was born into Christianity, unlike his convert father, and who managed to get the crown from the Papacy in the year of his death, in 1025.

So, first of all: Why did he adopt Charlemagne's name as his title? Król is widely believed to come from Karl/Karol (see Russian Король). But Książę/Knyaz' is believed to be a cognate with English King, and to have been an equivalent title, with titles translated as Grand Prince being like the Celtic High King, a king of other kings. Had other Slavic rulers converting to Western Christianity done it before?

Why did Charlemagne's name replace titles like Książę, Князь or the Lithuanian title of Kunigaikštis, even eventually in languages of Orthodox Slavs who seem to have kept these titles after conversion?

And what was exactly the importance of being crowned by the Pope? When did this precedent start? When did it end? Was there a similar practice among Orthodox Christians?

Hard to google.

He told me when Jesus was sentenced to death on the cross. His trial and what was said was recorded in text in accuracy. And that his exact sentencing was related to Jesus not paying taxes and trying to lead others to do the same. This way the Roman Empire wouldn't get taxes from him or his followers.

Is this true?

I'm fascinated about Easter Island and the Rapa Nui. It's amazing to wonder about their journey to arrive there.

According to TV Shows and Wikipedia Easter Island is a small place and the Rapa Nui people destroyed the natural resources while building the moai statues.

My question is, could such a small island sustain a thriving society of thousands or were they all doomed and just accelerated the destruction of the local environment and their own fall with the construction of the moai statues?

Or maybe it was TV series, I'm not sure I watched this a long time ago, but I've been thinking about as I'm trying to sleep now.

From what I remember it was something along those lines -- he falls into the ocean, and his crewmates tell their superior officers that someone fell overboard and that they need to stop to convoy in order to rescue them, however they are told that the convoy won't stop as they have specific time schedule.

My question is -- was this true, or was it fiction created by the writers to create drama for the viewers?

Thanks!

[deleted]

[deleted]

Humans can store a lot of fat. This fat, supposdely can be used when food is scarce. During the Holocaust we've heard tales and the after effects we've seen how skinny to the bones people are. Did overweight persons survive longer, with the less or no food conditions of the concentration camps?

The last time I asked about naval books, but I think it was too broad of a question to have many answers. So I try it again and ask a more specific question to start my research into WW1 and WW2 naval warfare. I am a huge fan of big guns you could say and thus I would love to start researching on the various classes of Battleships and Battlecruisers that were built and developed from 1914 to 1945, their various strengths and weaknesses in their design, their operational history, etc.

I'm reading A History of Chinese Civilization by Jacques Gernet. He writes that the language of Chu "belonged to a different linguistic group"and that its civilization was "a synthesis between autochthonous traditions of the 'barbarian' peoples of the middle Yangzi and the 'Chinese' traditions of the principalities of the center, the zhongguo." In what ways did it differ?

He also mentions that Yue and Wu were "no less distant." What about those? If I'm not mistaken Yue can also refer to non-Han peoples of southern China. Were their aristocracies not Chinese?

For example when they dispute the amount of casualties in a given battle. Or if they both claim a ruler to have said opposing things. Or when they describe the same lost treaty as having different contents. What measures do you take before taking the last resort of simply trusting one over the other?

e.g.

• What
• Who/Whom
• Why
• Where

So I am curious as to how the black plague affected the nomadic Mongolian people. Specifically:

1. How it spread to/through them
2. How they treated their sick, and how they tried to limit the spread
3. Death tolls and how they compare to non nomadic civilizations in the area, especially China
4. Cultural shifts during and after because of it
5. How long it remained a problem
6. What they did with the bodies

I've been trying to find info for a while so any help would be super great. Thanks in advance.

During the Great Purge, the NKVD tortured and threatened people in order to extract confessions. The why (correct me if I'm wrong) was to give legitimacy to the show trials; why would innocent people confess to crimes? I'm curious as to the how, though:

• How were people tortured? Were family members or loved ones threatened? Were they beaten, deprived of food, etc?

• Who performed the torturing? Was it an NKVD employee tasked with torturing, or was it someone else?

• Did everyone tortured break, or were there holdouts? If there were, were they just summarily shot?

• Did the NKVD just want confessions, or denouncement of names? Could I get a plea deal, wherein I confessed and gave up some names, and I could get a reduced sentence?

• This is a tangential question, but why did the USSR move away from exile to Siberia to either execution or labor camp?