Hi everybody,

What is the reference work about the Dark Ages/Early Middle Ages/Late Antiquity in Europe (from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 6th century to the beginning of the Middle Ages in the 10th century) ?

I ask this question because the historians' vision on this period has changed for some decades and I'm facing trouble picking one book among the others in the Wikipedia reading list of the article.

Thank you

I read about French volunteers assisting in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa and became curious about the broader involvement France had with its southern neighbors struggles against the Moores/ Berbers. It seems strange to my modern mind that the French were very eager to war against the Cathars in the Albigensian Crusade (given that they didn't identify them as ethnically French) yet don't appear quite as eager to crusade on the other side of the mountains, even after the Cathars were purged. One would have expected more notable formal coalitions to have made the short trip southwards.

Could someone shine some light on the "French" position to the "Spanish" situation and the Moores?

• Were formal military actions planned or undertaken?
• What was the nature of French involvement with the Reconquista?
• What did more invested regional powers (i.e. Southern France) like the Dutchy of Aquitaine do as part/ or in the absence of larger coalitions? Was this in raw manpower contributions? Economic? How did the naval dynamic work into this for coastal powers?
• Would it be accurate to view the Templars and other knightly crusading orders which participated in the Reconquista as comparable to foreign intervention, given the international qualities that groups like the Templars possessed?

Given that the Byzantine empire permanently lost the city of Rome in the 800s it must have felt strange calling yourself a "roman" when you don't even own your namesake city.

How did the Byzantine people feel about that odd naming...thing.

How did foreigners see This?

A few people have asked before, no answers.

In the late Middle Ages, Genoveses and Venetians sold slaves to the East. Where did the sold slaves come from?

Hello, I am wondering how I could be flaired. I do not understand the application process.

P.S. I'm a Napoleonic Historian, how would I get that flared?

I am doing a dissertation on the main reason the Roman empire collapsed. I want to argue that Christianity, and the loss of civic virtue it caused amongst Roman citizens, who now cared more about the kingdom to come after death rather then the one they lived in was the primary reason for the empires collapse. However, I can not find any written accounts from the period of 360AD to 476AD that suggest this in any way, which is crucial for my argument I need to construct. Does anyone know of any sources that reinforce this? Thanks in advance.

I don't mean to suggest that the First Crusade was an unmitigated success, but despite inconsistent leadership and constant logistical problems the crusaders seemed to manage to succeed at the critical moments needed to reach their overall objectives.

Specifically there were a number of battles and sieges, Dorylaeum, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Ascalon, where the Crusaders won against the odds to some extent. I'm sure each battle had it's unique circumstances, but was there something else going on that added up to advantages for the Crusaders?

• Did the Crusaders have some advantage in quality of equipment or soldiers?

• Were the tactics they used outside the experience of the Muslim armies they faced?

• I've seen it suggested that towards the later part of the First Crusade their army was battle hardened. How much of an advantage, if any, does that cohesion and experience confer?

Or is it even possible to talk about generalities that cut across the numerous string of events that made up the First Crusade?

I assume most people have binged on some TV show or book you particularly liked, and that night, when you went to sleep, your dreams were either entirely centered on it or had elements from it. For people in prior times who had less scientific knowledge concerning dreams, I can imagine this being an interesting experience (especially with works like the Bible).

Does anyone know of the earliest/early records of this happening?

(Note: I also posted this on /r/NoStupidQuestions )

I just mean that when people think of the separation between East and West Germany, they tend to think of the Berlin Wall. So why did this take on a greater historical significance than the Inner German border?

Not much attention is ever given to the Carthaginians during the punic wars in popular sources. I know there is a lot more information about the romans and polybius won't have had much on the carthaginians but there must be something. In the first punic war, an ostensibly peace loving faction pulls back troops rather than fight a costly war against the romans. this has pretty big consequences which are covered in great detail by books I own.

I'd love to know more about the political situation in carthagee before hand. all i can find is that it was Hanno's party that wanted peace. But there has to be more than that.

Anyone know of anywhere i can read about the political fighting that lead to this? maybe there isnt any record of it

As the Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History) has been written and published by Eusebius when Constantin was still alive, how can this be a lie? Or is it possible that the Church History isn't correct but somehow nobody reacted to Eusebius' book at the time it was published?

Here is the full quote.

"From what I've read," I said to him. "The world goes crazy every three or four decades. The trick is to survive until it goes sane again."

For context, Parable of the Sower is a novel where American society has collapsed into anarchy, bankruptcy, and chaos, and a fanatic is President. It was published in 1993. The quote is on page 210.

The title just about sums it up. I am working on the history of twentieth century comparative philology, following a group based in Moscow, and would really like to understand the institutional context. Thanks!

[deleted]