Hello. I am currently reading a danish translation of Saxo's "Gesta Danorum" In it he describes various tales involving the old Norse gods, however he makes sure to mention that they were not really gods but instead powerful and evil magic practitioners who were ruled from Constantinople .

My question is - was it just an invention of Saxo so that he could explain away all of his sources' mentions of gods before Christianity was adopted in Denmark or was it really what the educated elite of medieval Scandinavia believed? Do any other chroniclers mention norse (or hellenic) gods as just being extremely powerful, malicious men?

Why didn't the kings remove a symbol of Napoleon?

I'm in the midst of listening to the r/AskHistorians podcast on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and I'm struck by the apparent lack of centralized, top-down guidance that went into various aspects of the decision to bomb. It's unclear, for example, how much Truman, of all people, understood about the weapon and the choice of targets prior to deployment.

This got me thinking, if Truman wasn't completely aware, what about the flight crews? Are their any records of their opinions of their actions (pride, remorse) after the fact? Did they seem to be aware of the potential scale of their actions prior?

Kind of a different question, but this popped up as I was typing this out--was anything "special" about them? Were they specially chosen for any characteristics or were they simply just two flight crews who happened to be in the right place at the right (wrong?) time?

Edit: Thanks to whoever messaged me and notified me of my autocorrect typo from "Enola" to "Ebola"...deleted original post.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I have heard of how England had a big advantage with their proximity to the coast, but how come the Egyptians were so strong if they lived in a desert climate? How about Russia with their tundra plains or all of the harsh jungles in Asia?

I keep running into this idea of Panbabylonism, that Judaism (and the religions derived from it by proxy) are descended directly from the religion of Sumer and Babylon. When people talk about this theory they seem to either consider it a strong contender with lots of support, or complete bunk. Is this generally considered a legitimate theory, and if not are there reasons beyond it challenging the legitimacy of Christianity or being a German theory that involves Jewish belief-systems?

Ok. I'm going to write a story set in medieval city - however I don't know how did medieval court operate? How did the court case look like in details? Where did it take place? How long did it take? Who was present? Who could attend it and who couldn't? What documentation was made and where it was kept? Was the judgement announced in public - if yes then where and how? I would be grateful for both explanations and sites that I could find the info.

I started to wonder, if the writers have been 100% accurate with the use of technology referenced throughout the bible. Does it mention things like the bronze age, and is it equal to the "proven" timeline from our history books?

I understand that Middle Age period was around 10 centuries long, which is a lot, and many things happened during that period (wars, plague etc.), but perhaps there are some evidence, that answer this question from a perspective of an average person living in that period.

Thank you in advance for all the answers.

When reading (popular science) about "viking/norse culture" lately one thing has struck me that seems to be accepted as "common knowledge", and that is that "the fjords provided a significant strategic defensive advantage to the Norsemen."

I wonder if that assumption is actually backed up by historical events. Have foreign ships ever tried to "counter-raid" viking villages? And if so, did the fjords actually provide a significant obstacle in these undertakings?

How dangerous is/was navigating the fjords? Some very basic googling suggests that it's actually the rocky coastlines that are the real danger.

I'm not denying that heaps of people died during the Holocaust, but some of the figures seem unlikely:

Auschwitz:

 >1,100,000 people killed

 >Operational for 4.83 years (4 years and 10 months)

They'd have to kill at least over 600 people everyday, for the entire operation of the death camp. How is it that they were so damn efficient with killing? The gas chambers don't look that big, so how is it that they can kill 600 people everyday?

From what I can tell, most use of the term "Puritan" dies off after the late 1600s. But what about the 1700s and 1800s? What role did the Puritans play in the American Revolution? You hear about the role Quakers played in the Revolution, but you hear practically nothing about Puritans.