I'm currently in high school, (graduating in june,)and I was considering to study in history. Specifically in a mixture of WWII/50's & 60's subject (Korean war as well.) I was wondering..

• Is my subjects in history common?
• How difficult will it be to find a position for them?
• Any other advice/tips for my future

Thank yall!

Some researchers believe that is Anreppen, Oberaden or Haltern.

Watching Pride and Prejudice I was struck by how vigorous an exercise dancing was then. How did people of the time maintain their decorum when they must have smelt like they had been to the gym?

[deleted]

I'm taking a class on the Normandy campaign, and my professor has a bias against Montgomery as well as other books I've read. Was he really so bad? He accomplished a lot, so what did he do right or well?

My understanding is that the primary reason the papacy was in Avignon for a time is that the popes of the era were clients of the Kings of France, but I'm unclear on whether Avignon was part of France at the time.

If Avignon was not controlled by the Kings of France, why was it advantageous for them to keep the Popes there instead of in Rome (or somewhere actually in France)?

I've tried to figure this out on Wikipedia but different pages have conflicting answers (as well as dubious sourcing). The most coherent I've seen has Avignon in the Kingdom of Arles, within the Holy Roman Empire, during this period.

I heard the existence of these texts used as an argument in favor of studying Latin.

Is it true that there are a lot of works that were never translated into English?

P.S. By texts, I mean books, both non-fiction like history and fiction.

I posted a similar question which was removed for being a hypothetical, so I rephrased it somewhat.

Essentially his claim is that he was promised the throne by EdmundEdward the Confessor. But I was under the impression that succession was dependent on blood claim, i.e., descent from someone who held the throne or marriage to a woman - jure uxoris, or failing that, election (like how certain kings of france and holy roman emperors were elected). He was not elected, had no blood claim to the throne and neither did his wife. So why did people and nobility accept his claim?

When I was reading about English Kings and Norman dukes (on wikipedia but Idk where else to read for free) on Richard I of Normandy's page it says that his daughter's marriage to Aethelred the Unready and Cnut the Great added validity to William the Conqueror's claim. How? The two families did not wed again after that and he had no relation to english kings apart from that.

Secondly, he claims to have papal sanction but why did the pope help him?

Also what was the basis of Harald Hardrada's claim to the English throne?

EDIT: name

I've been reading Christopher Ward's The War of The Revolution and as our intrepid heroes are advancing backwards from White Plains to the Delaware River there are multiple references to "The Jerseys". A bit of internet research reveals that this is apparently a common term for what we now call New Jersey during the Revolutionary War era.

Not being from that part of the world, my knowledge of that region's history is lacking. I'm curious, what's the origin of the term, when did it fall out of favor, all that good stuff?

I've always been curious why there didn't seem to have been as much fighting directly between the two capitals as I would have expected. Were they just insanely fortified? Or did it just never make sense strategically for either side?

In the sense of: what kinds of corporate forms existed (if any?), what financial instruments were commonly used and what kinds of markets did they trade in? I chose the time period to represent what I hope is prior to significant impositions by European powers.

Also: yes, I know China is very big and there was probably a lot of variation. I'm most interested in hearing about whichever areas had the most sophisticated financial markets, their "cutting edge".

And

Hi Reddit!

I would love to know what are/were some controversies about the Knight's Templar?

Also any controversial questions. To what extent were they a christian order? Were they a masonic order? To what extent were they a millitary order? What was their relations with the other orders? Anything you can think of would be a great help!

Im undergoing a research task on it and was looking for some inspiration.

So much of how these leaders are seen today seems cartoonishly evil. Is it possible the popular accounts of the time were stories made up by political opponents that became twisted and distorted over time for political gain?