Was this somewhat official? Did Germans at the time or even Nazi leaders themselves use the term? What are the more etymological origins of the term?

I remember reading how lead was used both as an artificiall sweetener to food and drinks but also in water pipes etc. Do we know how much this affected the people in Rome?

I know that promissory notes have been around since the 14th century in Italy. And I know that there are a whole load of rules about the modern financial instrument as to what information it has to contain to be a proper promissory. Do we know what text was on the early forms of these notes?

[deleted]

I was playing a grand strategy game called hearts of iron 4 and Hungary gets the option to send a referendum to Austria to reform Austria Hungary much like the Germans do for the Anschluss. And i was wondering if it were true to real life or not.

Honestly to me this screams inclusiveness and political correctness and in a way works to somehow make the nazis seem less evil and inclusive.

Im not a historian but if i had to guess the only examples of this would be some sort of driver in incredibly rare circumstances and i feel like the only time a black woman would be considered at all is literally in the final days.

Female soldiers also feature alongside the allied forces too fighting in the same groups as men. Just so you know.

[deleted]

Or he just wanted to change the Catholic Church? Was the Lutheran Church founded by him or by people influenced by his ideas?

I have a pretty important presentation to make for school with the title:"The MAD-Doctrine - Preventer of a 3rd World War?"

I started reading "Getting MAD: Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction, it´s Origins and Practice" Edited by Henry D.Sokolski to get into the topic but it is over 300 pages and I don´t know how much it will actually help me for my presentation. I also have read Wikipedia articels to get a better overview of the topic. Additionally I have seen "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety" by Eric Schlosser in the recommended books of this sub and consider buying it or finding it at a local library.

My understanding so far is that it is definetly a factor because the caused damage by a nuclear war would heavily outweigh any benefits of a war. Some argue that this would hold true without nuclear weapons but this claim seems to be only supported by vew for various reasons. I also read some critics that MAD could very easily be the start of a 3rd WW (rogue attacks , system failures etc.).

As a small bonus question: Where there any other conflicts since 1945 that could have escalated into a 3rd WW besides the Cold War?

For this presentation we are forced to dig a bit deeper than normally so I can´t use Wikipedia or the like and I also can´t just state my opinion as the presentation so I hope r/AskHistorians could help me find some good sources and information on this topic.

Edit:grammar

I am looking, for a research paper, for secondary and primary sources that are available in english about the Mongol Empire and, more specifically, the factors and characteristics intrinsic to the Mongols that helped them be such a force to be reckoned with during their rise.

A few gaps in my knowledge of cavalry charges (from various periods, though some of the principles would apply across them) have been bugging me for a while.

1. What did it mean to couch a lance? What was the difference between a couched lance and an un-couched one?

2. Say that two knights are riding at each other joust-style, and Knight "A" strikes and knocks Knight "B" off his horse with a lance. My understanding of physics might just be bad, but wouldn't the impact force be equal for both knights, and therefore have a good chance at unseating the Knight A as well?

3. When two formations of cavalry charged each other and fought, what would happen during and after the initial impact? Would they generally pass through each other, or would the formations have a solid impact but stay mostly cohesive?

4. As I understand it, knightly-style heavy cavalry avoided charging straight into infantry, preferring to flank or charge weakened or routing units. But, what would happen in battles like Legnano (1176), where an all-cavalry force unsuccessfully charged an infantry line? Would they just repeatedly charge, turn around, and pull back?

Sorry for the massive dump of questions, but any help is appreciated.

Not sure if that's the best way to refer to religion among the Norse peoples prior to Christianity, but it's my best guess.

Asking for a friend. He's curious both about the general process of conversion as it worked on the ground (to the degree we have that information) and also any interesting stories about conversion experiences or decisions. Did converting make a big difference in one's daily life?

[deleted]

Why would someone use the word Gag, to choke in disgust, for a funny joke/pun that makes you laugh?

I've been thinking of going down a history major, but I'm concerned that there aren't that many jobs in it - what kinds of options are available (and how many), what degree is necessary for them, and what is the pay like?

Didn't the revolutions and civil war reduce the power of the monarch? Was it a specific point that the founding fathers were trying to make charging the King?

In terms of who, I mean what was his position and relation to previous Caliphs. As I understand it, he was neither one of Mohammed's Companions or close relations. So what did he have going for him that he managed to ascend to the Caliphate after Ali's assassination?