I did a search and read all of the William Wallace stuff, but only a vague mention of him "brutally executed" was made. How exactly did they do it and how common was the form of execution? And how do we know for sure it happened this way?

I say 4 because there were 4 factors in taking Germany, the US, the UK, France and the Soviet Union. Was there a fear that a unified Germany would just start WWIII?

I understand that this may be a topic that would greatly benefit from understanding fine details. Therefore, if you could recommend or direct me to some sources that I could do personal research, it would be appreciated. Thank you.

Is there a site that has them or something?

I am aware of his living conditions there, but I am curious as to how his stay on the island was enforced. I'm sure his person was kept under guard, but did the island have a permanent naval presence? If not, what would stop a group of Bonapartists taking a warship or even an armed merchant vessel to go pick him up? Surely the island's garrison could be overcome. Did any such attempt ever occur?

Coins and statues show him as someone with a double chin, and other ugly features. Wouldn't he want to display himself as a handsome figure for propaganda value?

This may not be the kind of post that's supposed to go on this subreddit, but I'm curious about this and am hoping you guys can help me.

Disney released the movie "The Emperor's New Groove" in the year 2000. It was, in my opinion, an amazing movie. It followed Emperor Kuzco as he went from a merciless ruler that only cared about himself to a kindhearted man who tried to help others.

I'm asking for help figuring out when this movie took place. I tried to look it up earlier, but, since this isn't a super popular movie, I've been having trouble finding answers. Can anyone help me figure this out? If you use any websites, please site them in your response. Thank you.

[deleted]

So I have this really brainy coworker who knows a butt load about history and he seems to know a bunch of Washington types and he said to me today that, "there are only really two diplomats working in the world that are truly elite - Lavrov and Kissinger."

I understand that this is probably an exaggeration, but my surprise was that he - and upon my further reading many others - still consider Kissinger to be the sort of Ultimate Voice in the US government over the last 50+ years when it comes to Foreign Anything. My further research has Kissinger in rooms with Kushner in 2017 acting on behalf of the United States, and his modern presence shocked me.

Is Kissinger's modern influence being overstated by my coworker? If it isn't, how is it even possible that Henry Kissinger (who in my 1993-born brain is synonymous with NIXON/SEVENTIES and hardly anything more) has carried his influence all the way to present day in his nineties? Half the time I hear about him he's being accused of war crimes, the other half speaks of him in the past tense.

To be brief and redundant, my question is: I usually associate Kissinger with the 70s, but he is still considered not only relevant but essential to US foreign policy. What did he do in the 80s and 90s to maintain his importance (as anything after 1998 is not allowed to be discussed on this sub)?

Nearly a century before Columbus made contact with the Caribbean, I've read that the Chinese had funded massive Junker ships that held crews of thousands of people and travelled all around the Old world, trading cultural gifts and economic goods.

Considering they would've accumulated great navigational knowledge and had the requisite wealth to do so, why didn't the Chinese ever set out to establish, say, Chinese California? Surely they should have noticed the wonderful economic benefits early colonization had for their European counterparts?

[deleted]

Why did Major General Henry Halleck decide to replace Hooker with Meade as Commander of the Army of the Potomac in the middle of Lee's invasion and what were his expectations for Meade?

I was looking through the wikipedia page on Honorious and I noticed that he served with, was proceeded by and was succeeded by several guys named Flavius as Consul. I had a look at the list and it seems that from about the mid 3rd century they make up the the vast majority of Consuls (I count 5 years from 342-442 where there wasn't at least one Consul named Flavius.) I know the Romans didn't have many first names, but this seems absurd. What's going on?

It is always explained to me that men used to hunt and women used to gather but how do we know that this always happened like this? Are there any examples of male gatherers or female hunters? How can we be certain that this never occured? I could for example see a benefit in older or less fit men being gatherers. A combination of both could also benefit the population. ( for example a women spotting a rabbit while picking berries )

[deleted]

I have read on various blogs and posts that many Waffen-SS veterans served with the French Foreign Legion during the First Indochina War. Is that true? If so, under what capacity? Did any serve as officers?