I'm in a small town on the James River, in Virginia, in 1851, and need to get a message to someone quick, in Memphis, TN. Do I use telegraph? Or courier? Or...?

Thanks!

What did the execution of them actually achieve? What were the knock-on effects of the people switching support against the rebels, to the rebels?

What I mean to say is was there a King Arthur-esque person who had grandiose myths surrounding him and his fellow knights?

Was there a Sir Gawain the Green Knight of the Ottomans?

An Excalibur?

I hope this question makes sense because I have never heard of the Muslim side of Knights and what not

I ask this in keeping with the weekly theme of Globalization, but I'll be glad to remove or reframe the question if it's too incendiary or not meaningfully enough connected to the theme.

Many earlier versions of the standard anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing sees Jews connected to "financiers" and "international bankers," but what are the origins of tying this particular line of bigotry to globalism itself?

I don't get it

So sadly I only just now got around to watching the latest Disney animated movie. And this part honestly confused me slightly. As per my understanding, sails were really prone to breakage, falling apart, getting holes and such. And thus spending so much time on sails that were so finely and artistically decorated seems... pointless

Can anyone give me a step-by-step on sea salt manufacture before the invention of plastics and heavy machinery? This is assuming a salt maker (salt-maker?) who's in close proximity to the ocean, in an arid seaside environment.

On one hand he is appalled by Kristallnacht and how it divided his once great German nation of artists and intellectuals by promoting a kakistocratic system. But on the other, when Germany occupies the Netherlands, he fully embraces the Christian values of the Nazi party and condemns the liberalism of Britain, saying that it has been dominated by "Freemasonry and Juda".

Is this shift due to his deteriorating health and age? Or had he always had a distrust of jews, defending their skills but not their persons?

The thrust of my question comes from the understanting that Fascism is a nationalistic philosophy. Does it therefore follow that international apologia would be rare?

The organ was extremely popular in 60s rock music, most notably appearing many times in the music of The Doors. It seems that it slowly died out throughout the 70s and is no longer popular in contemporary rock. What lead to this change?

Asked in honor of one of our new mods. I've been thinking of asking this question for months, so now seems as good a time as any!

Massachusetts is the most Catholic state in the US, with 44% of its citizens being Catholics. How did a state that was founded by and was a haven for Protestants come to be the most Catholic state?

I realize using one's own experience falls squarely in the "anecdotal" category. What I'm getting at is two-fold:

• Does this come up in research/discussion, acceptable or not?
• Does the usefulness change if you are/were an expert in the subject you personally experienced?

An acquaintance of mine is a Holocaust denier, and we get into frequent arguments about it. Even after I showed him a big portion of the evidence there is, he chooses to ignore it and says that we can't be sure that those pieces of evidence weren't manipulated.

He also showed me some of his own pieces of evidence, and I researched those same pieces of evidence only to find out that they were deliberately manipulated (who would've thunk it?). After I did that, he said that he bases his arguments on "an analysis of the present world", saying that "corruption, pain, hunger, and anger" are all signs, somehow. When asked what he bases those arguments on, he did not reply.

So, what can I do? Is there even a chance? How can I prove hat the evidence we have is truthful and has not been manipulated?

First off, is the question even right in the first place? Is the emphasis on mounted knights just a product of propaganda or does it have weight? Second, did cavalry actually achieve significant enough advancement in the medieval era to advantage itself over infantry? I am aware of challenges to the notion that stirrups were what enabled mounted cavalry in warfare. Finally, was the knowledge of doctrine from the Greeks and Romans 'lost'? I find it hard to believe that there was a complete and total scholarly void that didn't look to the age of antiquity.

In the reading I've done, it suggests that the use of cavalry was a product from adapting to the feudal system. Given a relative lack of centralized control, coordination and wealth, the large professional and semi-professional armies of Rome and Greece were impossible in the smaller and resource-light fiefdoms of Western Europe, since lords couldn't pull away a large majority of their labor for extended periods of the time to effectively train a well-disciplined force of heavy infantry, but could afford to upkeep a smaller corps of lifetime fighters that could also patrol their lands.