Were the locals "English"? Does that concept even have meaning here?

[deleted]

In today's standards, it seems highly unlikely to see one football team being that dominant. So, how were Real Madrid able to do it? Was the quality of the other teams much lower than most of today's Champions League teams?

For a country of about 40 million inhabitants in someone around the 14th century.

Surely they wouldn't bring the entire group of 5000+ to a stop for your needs, so what would your options be?

Would you be expected to simply shit yourself in formation and keep marching? Would you be allowed to run off for a minute to relieve yourself and then rejoin the formation? Did the whole Legion take bathroom breaks every once in a while? What if a Centurion had an emergency?

From my understanding, Legions routinely marched from sun up to sundown, so surely this was a common thing that the men dealt with.

Hey all, odd question that normal Google-Fu seems to be failing at. Is there ANY consensus from people who actually study this stuff as to where the "Easter" holiday originated from?

The Wiki seems to have some wiggle language "modern Easter" and cross links to pages discussing per-Christian traditions but densest come out and say one way or the other. Google links to crazy christian or crazy pagan blogs, pages, etc. None of which give me much confidence as to anyone's objectivity or bounds in reality.

There has to be some poor soul of a grad student here without an agenda who has a somewhat more relevant and research answer.

I am most interested in a detailed comparison of the various coats of plates, maille, and other bits of armour.

Lincoln wasn't popular before, during, or after the Civil War, obviously. Was there any resistance to using $5 the way some Native Americans refuse to use $20s due to Andrew Jackson's image?

Specifically (but not exclusively) the British army. Were there transitional periods where some of the army used some sort of early firearm and the rest used pikes/shields and the like, or was it sort of an all-at-once situation? How were these transitional armies arranged in battle (if they existed)?

What were conflicts like, if there were any, between armies that had made these upgrades and those that hadn't?

Specifically, I wonder what is different about the 1911 revolution that gave it such a sense of permiance. Some inter dynastic periods lasted several centuries, was there ever a sense during those periods that they were between dynasties, rather than the feeling that there would never return to dynastic rule?

Was he actually a Nazi, or did he just go along with it because he wanted to build rockets?

Since curcumcision originated in Jewish practice, I would imagine the rate of circumcision dropped drastically. Is this the case? Did the rate rise again after WWII?

Around what percent of people got tortured or executed using those extremely harsh methods? What crime did people often have to commit?

Am I right/close when I say that:

As the Celts moved through Europe (as the culture called the; 'Germanic Italo-Celts'), when they reached Mid-West (ish) Europe, a splinter group split from the Italo-Celts, to become the startings of the Germanics, spreading all over Germanica.

The Italo-Celts then went on to Gaul, then on to Briton, etc.

The Germanics then became the tribes we know, in North Germanica the nordic (old norse) language was created, Paganism too with the Norse gods. The North Germanic people the Danes sailed over to Scandinavia and settle in what we call Denmark, and Norway-

Then they spread further through Norway and into Sweden becoming what people really see as the "Norse" and "Viking" (although I know 'Viking' isn't a people, most less educated people on the subject don't realise that) cultures, upgrading their language and religion and overall culture to how we know it now?

Is this accurate?

Cheers all :)

Seems like it's pretty normal now for Presidents to make announcements on TV. Before television was as ubiquitous as it is today, how were Presidential announcements released? Newspaper? Was the transition controversial?

EDIT: Other transitions, such as radio, are included in the scope of this question. I use TV as an example.

I was watching the PBS: American Experience documentary about WW1, and it was claimed that the British knew the ship Lusitania (containing hundreds of American and thousands of British passengers) was headed in the path of a German U-boat, but deliberately chose not to warn it or supply it with a destroyer escort in the hopes it would be fired upon, which would outrage the neutral Americans. This is exactly what happened; thousands of civilians - men, women, and children - died after the ship was struck by a German torpedo, sinking it within 18 minutes, and this did outrage Woodrow Wilson and other Americans, escalating tensions with the Germans that ultimately led to US entry into the war.

However, if the British did indeed allow the attack to occur, that would raise serious ethical concerns. Even more disturbing is the idea that the British deliberately put the ship (and others) in harm's way, as alleged by historian Patrick Beesly according to Wikipedia:

"Unless and until fresh information comes to light, I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy deliberately to put the Lusitania at risk in the hope that even an abortive attack on her would bring the United States into the war. Such a conspiracy could not have been put into effect without Winston Churchill's express permission and approval."

Beesly apparently bases this claim in large part on the fact that Churchill wrote a week before the attack that it is "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany."

Now, it is true that the Lusitania was not a "neutral" ship, being a prestigious British liner. And it is perhaps arguable that Churchill did not intend for lives to be lost on the scale they were, only for Americans to witness the terrors of German submarine warfare. But it is also true that the Lusitania was smuggling armaments for the British, thereby arguably making it a legitimate military target and perhaps causing the unusually quick and devastating destruction of the ship.

It would seem then that if this theory is true, the British were negligent at best, war criminals at worst. That would drastically alter my perceptions of American involvement in the First World War, as well as my view of Winston Churchill. What I would like to know is if there is in fact any strong evidence that this conspiracy occurred, and if so to what degree: Did the British actually know the Lusitania was in immediate harm and did nothing, did they deliberately intend to put it in harm's way, or were they merely careless about protecting the ship?

Why specifically these individuals were the ones eligible to sign these documents?

I am a history fan meaning most of the things that I learned about history are not exactly from the most trusted sources like history lessons at university campuses but I try my best to use very relevant references to learn about history.

But I will admit that some of the things that I thought that I learned about history was through films and TV and I was surprised after some research on Youtube by Youtube personalities who are passionate about history like Skallagrim, Metatron and History Buffs just love to obliterate inaccurate historical films like Braveheart, Pearl Harbor, Gladiator and so on.

How do historians cope when many people often believe that they see on films and TV whose portrayals of history are often changed for entertainment purposes (which I cannot really blame film makers because drama and action is what sells on the media) when these people know the actual truths?

Obviously they didn't have policemen, I mean in terms of courts, legal recourse, prosecutions, ordeals, etc.