Hey all,

I'm currently doing a primary source analysis on Queen Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy and had a few questions.

1. How did Elizabeth's Acts differ from Henry's and was one more brutal/unjust than the other?

2. Was there a forecast of Elizabeth bringing back the Supremacy of the throne? Did Catholic leaders and followers have forewarning?

3. How was the Act generally received by England? Moreso accepted out of fear or were the English eager to merge their powers?

Thanks in advance, I'm trying to gain more understanding before actually writing my assignment

D-day famously begins the allied invasion of Europe with an intense amphibious assault. On the other hand, although I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of the Pacific Theater is poor, I don't recall ever hearing about any similar landings, nor do I see much evidence looking up a very limited sample of Guadalcanal and Okinawa.

Did the Japanese prefer to fight inland? Is it the difference in perimeter to area ratio of an island vs continent?

I recently read a news article about the "Finn-Men" who are believed to be Inuit in Northern Scotland (Orkney). Were they definitely present or could they have been mistaken for someone else? Or a complete myth?

This is only something I recently started investigating, but i am shocked that I did not know more about the German Revolution and its relationship to Nazism.

Aside from Hitler's personal feelings against Jews, since much of the Jewish population backed the Soviet Union-backed communists in the German Revolution, could the Nazis rise to power and universally accepted intolerance of Jews be related to the German Revolution?

It just struck me as being odd that it's rarely discussed that Germany was nearly destroyed and turned into a Soviet-backed Communist state had it not been for the Weimar Republic winning the revolution. And being that alot of the Jewish population at that time favored the eastern-European communist side of the conflict, i can start to see where the seeds of division started.

As a 2017 parallel, it seems similar to if the Netherlands had a revolution where the majority of its Turkish-heritage citizens backed the Islamist side of the revolution against a secular nativist side.

Any thoughts on this?

Background: Based on my own experience (lived in Russia, Poland, southern Europe,etc...) and stories from relatives during the height of the cold war, the West's citizenry had a much easier time during the cold war than the former Soviet Block countries.

To be clear - that would not include Yugoslavia, which wasn't part of the Soviet Block though they did side with the USSR in many things. Theirs was a game of playing east vs. west and it benefited their society greatly.

I would like to understand the true state of mind of the people "behind the wall" and how much truth there is to the stories of people "dying" to leave. For example, I know people were literally murdered during escape attempts, but how prevalent was that desire to go throughout the USSR? Were there just as many throughout all regions of the USSR or only on the western side?

If it was true, then any ideas on why the USSR thought running a country as if it was a prison, would work? How much truth is there to the "intelligence" groups internal to the USSR and how easily they could make USSR citizens disappear?

Any thoughts on past lessons with the Russian's that would be useful now to NATO leadership?

As a comparison, Jewish nationalism was arguably more popular in central and Eastern Europe around the turn of the century. This is not to say that Zionism is entirely reactionary but antisemitism surely drove Herzl and Leon Pinsker towards Jewish nationalism.

If this actually happened, how often? Was it widespread?

Question one: does anyone know where I may find a copy (preferably online) in Anglo-Norman?

Question two: does anyone here have experience working with Anglo-Norman? I read modern French, but I'm not sure how well it would translate.

On a related note, has their been works in the 21st century that harken back to that era in literature and music of today's society?

From what I know Transylvania is a region in Romania.

Roughly 37 seconds passed between the time the lookouts spotted the iceberg and the actual collision occurred. Given we know Titanic's cruising speed, was there actually enough time to avoid a collision?

I've often heard it stated that if the ship was simply turned at full speed, the collision might have been avoided. I suppose the math might check out, but I'm not sure.

How much cargo in tons, in average, could medieval cogs, galleys and longships transport?

Yes, I am aware that the answer is, "in a stable". I am interested in a more detailed and specific answer than this. Did houses have tiny stables instead of garages? If someone left his horse at a private stable downtown overnight, did he receive a parking ticket? What are the mundane, specific details of life in a pre-automobile urban centre that we wouldn't think of today? Etc.

Timeframe: Let's say we're talking from the invention of the steam engine to the widespread adoption of the Model T, just to be inclusive.

And if the governor ever needs me to go on a mission for him, who would have the duties of maintaining the plantation during my absence?

[deleted]

I recently argued with my history teacher about this. I said he did, with evidence in things like his picture being framed in classrooms, etc,. Would this be true? If so, are there other examples I could present that he in fact did have a cult of personality?

It seems like every animation I've seen goes by giant chunks. I feel like with more collaboration by now, there could be a animated mobius looking U.S. "growing" before our eyes. Is there projects like this underway or completed?

Really just looking for a simple explanation of how the government functioned. I looked at the wiki for Venice, but left with just more questions. There seem to be many different moving pieces (the Doge, the council of ten, the signoria, the major council, the minor council, the supreme tribunal). And it seems like many of the people in one branch of the government are also part of other branches. I may be wrong though.

Is there a simple explanation for how it all worked together and what the responsibilities of each institution/position were?