I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast - specifically his series on WWI. It's been very interesting so far, but it's complicated enough that I've had to back it up and listen to certain parts a bunch of times to really understand what happened and why. But the one thing I still don't get is why Germany opened the war by invading France...? Everything up to that point makes sense.

1. Franz Ferdinand is assassinated, Austria-Hungary blames Serbian gov't for sponsoring/encouraging it.

2. Serbia asks Russia to protect them in the event of a war with A-H.

3. Germany tells A-H to go ahead and pursue military action against Serbia, they will back them up against Russia.

4. A-H begins assault on Serbia, Russia starts mobilizing.

5. ?????????

6. Germany invades France.

Presumably, Russia would come in from the west to clash with Austro-Hungarian forces in Serbia, who would in turn need backup from Germany. Instead, Germany turns around and dumps like 750,000 troops across their eastern borders into Belgium and then France. Can someone give me a quick-and-dirty explanation of what Germany's motive was for putting so much effort and resources into launching a full-scale assault in the opposite direction of the original conflict? I just don't get it.

I.e, the m1 garand, m1a1, Thompson and m3 "Grease gun." Did they undergo different training, like I assume machine gun troops did, or was it completely random?

Did any of these troops carry handguns with them?

According to Article 2 of the 14th amendment, those who had after the age of 21 been in open rebellion against the US couldn't be in Congress. George was, even though he was a signatory of the Mississippi Ordinance of Secession and a Confederal Colonel. How did this happen?

Specifically, I'm particularly interested in such details as the pilot who took out a German Stuka on no fuel. Is there any truth to this part of the story or are there tales that this actually happened?

Hi all, I was curious- I remember writing a history paper about Dunkirk in my high school history class all those years ago, and I read a book I found in the library about it. I remember reading that there were Americans at Dunkirk helping with the evacuation, and I'm just curious, in light of the recent movie, how true that was. Bonus points if anyone remembers that book (because I don't lol). Thanks! Ed: I realize that this might also be considered American centrist and that's not what I was going for when I asked the question.

I have encountered a lot of different theories concerning the Battle of Hastings and Harold's death. Most recently, I read Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King by Ian Walker.

Walker claims that most of the things I was taught at school are probably wrong: the Normans did not break the Saxon shieldwall by cleverly faking a rout; Harold did not commit to battle too soon; his army was mostly fresh with only his housecarls having made a rapid march from Stamford Bridge; the Saxons were likely to win the battle... until Harold really was killed by an unlucky arrow to the eye.

Is there any scholarly consensus on this? Is there anything about the battle that we know for certain?

What significance did the airborne operation of the Battle of the Bulge have

Why was it that the Chinese capital city moved from Xian to Beijing in around the 10th century AD (think that's right - can't really remember!!) Also were there any other changes as I know there are other cities that mean 'southern capital' etc

Which president needed to re-fill the most? And how do they compare to the current administration?

I'm noticing that science fiction tends to be rich in mythological elements, but that early "War of the Worlds" type stuff was not. Has there indeed been a shift toward mythological and fantasy elements since the early days of science fiction, and if so, how much of that can be traced back to cross-genre influence of JRR Tolkien?

To put it more practically, would Star Wars have the Force if Middle Earth had not had the ring?

I know from the research I've been able to do that it was a companion of his that first set foot in Colombia, but why did he name it after Columbus and not, say, the king or queen who financed the trip in the first place? Was Columbus particularly well-liked in his day by his fellow Europeans? That would run counter to what I've heard about him, but I know public school history is often wrong on those little details.

Edit: "Is this accurate"

I'm assuming they did not have knit fabrics as we do today. If they were made from an unstretchy woven fabric, how were they able to be so well-fitted as illustrated in many Medieval drawings we have from the time period?

The story of the territory of Liège being annexed in the zone of influence of Burgundy seems like the typical story in feudal Europe of a small entity being swallowed by an ambitious bigger one.

Yet the relations between those two seem surprisingly tense and bloody. Liège, seemingly a rather abundant region (therefore having a lot to lose) but with no real military resources to start a revolt with hopes of success still did so multiple times. The dukes then seemed especially harsh in crushing these small revolts, going from throwing hundreds of people into the river to burning and pillaging whole cities under their control. Wikipedia doesn't go into explaining much of the context.

How do Liège's revolts and the Burgundian repression compare to similar events in the same timeframe? And what were the motivations and expectations of the actors?

Edit: I'll push my luck and page some people that could have the relevant expertise: /u/baronzaterdag /u/NewYorkeroutoftown /u/sunagainstgold

Queen Christina of Sweden was the daughter of Gustav II Adolf, who led Swedes in The Thirty years war. Christina ruled Kingdom of Sweden from 1632 until 1654 when she abdicted her crown and converted to Catholicism.

What were the reasons for her convertion? Are there any good books about her?

Was this after Buddhism's decline so no on was around to dispute this claim or was it an earlier attempt to absorb an heterodox teaching?

When most laypeople think of a knight they think of the "golden age" of knighthood: a man clad in plate armour upon a high backed saddle on a destrier, his feet in saddles whilst he keeps up the tenants of the chivalric code. The problem I have is that the most famous knights in my opinion (king Arthur's knights of the round and Charlemagne's paladins) existed centuries (up to a millennia) before these things were invented.

My question is what these two core groups of famous knights looked like (what they wore, what they rode, how the fought) and did they have any non-revisionist tenets of action? Would King Arthur's "knights" been more like Alexander's sacred band?

Understandably, there must have been many! Any information on any example would be much appreciated.