I came across a map showing historical sites in northern VA and it showed a site called Axacon which was settled in the late 1500's.

I was watching Versailles, with King Louis talking to William of Orange about going to war with each other and trying to reach a truce. This got me thinking. Afaik, most common people were illiterate in those days so only the wealthy could read. I doubt there were many trained interpreters all over the place. And it could end up like Chinese whispers if it was hard to interpret.

I was reading a biography of Yuan Shikai and a central point that was brought forward was that despite all of China's self-strengthening in the 19th century, China's modernized army was built up for defence but was never meant to be actually used for defence, as shown by Li Hongzhang's reluctance to engage Japan over Korea and the continual losses against Japan in the First Sino-Japanese war and against Europeans.

The book then states that Yuan Shikai never forgot that lesson and took it to heart, even when continuing to modernize the nation and the army. As such, when Japan issued the Twenty One Demands in World War I, he capitulated on most things.

So, it seems that there's a trend: Despite all modernization, the Chinese armies always remained weak and corrupt enough that they could never stand up to Japan.

Yet, contrast 1915 with 1937. A mere two decades later, after many wars in China, which I imagine would weaken it, the KMT stands up to Japan. Their armies are of course not as good as those of Japan, but they still fought them to a standstill and it was not a pushover like earlier.

Why was the Kuomingtang's army able to take Japan on and the armies of Qing and Yuan Shikai not, despite the modernization and foreign training of both armies?

I am unaware if this question has already been covered. So apologies if the answer is obvious. I just noticed some blatant comparisons.

After hearing the myth, all I could think of was how badly Höðr got the shaft. Not only was he blind, he was tricked into killing his universally beloved brother, and then later killed to avenge this. By our modern ideas of morality, I believe many people would think that Höðr would not be fully at fault, if anything, he's another victim in the situation. Loki was the one with the evil intent, and Höðr was an unwitting pawn.

But that's our modern ideas of morality, do we know what the Norse felt about moral issues like this? Was the sin of kinslaying so egregious that even if accidental it was unforgivable? Or was Höðr's death by Váli not done out of malice, but simply "what must be done" in a situation like this? And what of Loki? Would the Norse consider him to be more or less at fault? Even if they did consider him a murderer for what he did, would he be less guilty since he didn't murder his kin while Höðr did, however unwittingly?

So fresh from watching the film, I'm curious to hear how did the soldiers that were evacuated do for the rest of the war for the most part? Did they get sent back to the other fronts (North Africa?) or were they kept solely for home defense? Did they go back into action at Normandy etc?

In the film Dunkirk, Tom Hardy is a fighter pilot. At the end of the film, he flies over the beaches and instead of ejecting near the perimeter and evacuating, he flies further afield, lands, destroys his spitfire, and is captured.

I'm fully happy to accept this as artistic license, but I was wondering if there was a protocol reason behind it? Did he land just so he could be sure his plane was destroyed?

Furthermore, how often would one be expected to destroy their equipment to prevent it from falling into enemy hands? What are some famous (interruptor gear aside) instances of this?

I remember my history teacher told us that alexander macedonian wielded two swords at the same time. I want to find out if that's true.

Very often in European mythologies and fairy tales knowing something's true name gave you power over it. I have read that early Germanic peoples would tabbo saying the real name for "bear". But did early Europeans really believe in names having power outside of Mythology?

I know that collaboration made up the rank and file but did groups like the Orpo, Kripo and the Schutzpolizei have any presence in occupied territory and if they did what was roughly their responsibility?

Edit:there is supposed to an "of" in the title oops

I'd like to ask about Salad and history. Did people eat salad in the past the way we do it nowadays ? I am very curious to know anything about it. I never heard anything about salad when talking about history of food, so that's why I am asking!

When the Austro-hungarian empire dissolved after WWI, why didn't the Czechs and Slovaks form two separate states, like we have today with Czechia and Slovakia?

When did people realize that sea salt could be derived from simply boiling sea water off? Why was salt worth anything if it was so easily obtained by mere proximity to the ocean?

How many bombs would it usually take to sink one? Did they have effective anti-air counterfire? How does it complare to the number of hits ships took in the movie Dunkirk?

What economic pressures would exist to try to push you to discrimination on the basis of race? (If any.)

The thread title is the thrust of my question. I'm a lawyer so I'm curious about how liability was dealt with, especially in jurisdictions without an English common law background.

I don't have any real specifics for time but "knight" roughly captures the period I'm most curious about.

There's a definite yet inexplicable association of that pattern with sexuality, which I'm guessing dates back to the 70s. But how did this happen?

Context: I am a Christian seeking understanding of the socio-historical foundations of my religion. I respect the scientific method and believe its method is well served to answer questions of history and religion. I am seeking a coherent knowledge base that i can use to inform my personal decisions about religion and its role in my life. I will be happy to hear the conjectures from psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and scholars of religion. I'm not sure the answers i am seeking. I am preparing to go on a religious journey and i want to know the input of others while i prepare for this journey. The question, then, is:

What is your field of study, and what does it lend to a socio-historical analysis of the Abrahamic religion? What is your individual input? In your opinion, what can i work on to better understand this subject?

Checked Jstor already and it's available for 20.00. Hoping to find it free somewhere...any ideas?

A book that I've been somewhat unsure of the accuracy of, The Sea Wolves by Lars Brownworth, made a claim I'd like help verifying. They said that the Viking's Great Heathen Army, was the largest invasion of the British Isles in recorded history. Was that army really larger than the Romans or the Normans? The book also talks about Ragnar Lothbrok like he's a wholly historical figure, which I don't think is agreed upon.

Help so I don't have to waste more of my time read this book if it's unreliable.