I'm rewatching "Elizabeth R," (one of my all time favorites), and I'm up to the part where Essex is conducting his dreadful Irish campaign. Twice in the film, she makes a special point of saying that Robert Devereaux, Earl of Essex, may not return to London without her "express warrant." He ended up violating that order.

Why did she insist he must not return to London? Had he a reputation of dereliction of duty during war? Was there some political reason? Or was this standard procedure at the time? What if he had some good reason to want to return, such as recruitment of fresh troops? (My reading says he actually came back for political reasons: his feud with Sir Robert Cecil, his reputation was suffering because of the poor campaign, he wanted to protect his standing at court.)

As a corollary question, why was Essex's parley with O'Neill such a bad thing? If the idea was peace with Ireland, surely negotiating a treaty with O'Neill would have been useful, if not entirely what Elizabeth had hoped for.

My central question is "The Ottoman Empire - an anti colonial Empire?".

I can not find good sources about this topic sadly because most of the sources only talk about the European imperialism. Im also trying to find a fitting imperialism theory for this topic but I can't really choose one because I have like no sources which discuss the topic I have. Thanks in advance!

In the middle ages some females were knighted. Who were some of them and how were they addressed? How were their spouses addressed if they had them?

You hear a lot about how much everyone hates the baby boomer generation so it got me wondering. Has a youth movement ever overthrown their government specifically to kick the entrenched older generations out?

Essentially, why wasn't the Kingdom of Greece considered a continuation of the Roman/Byzantine Empire?

Also, did people in that time speak like we do now in terms of manner of speaking, or were they always as formal as we see in movies?

Possibly the wrong place but is there an historic reason as to why American cuisine revolves around a lot of frying?

Economical reasons? (Capitalism? For maximising profit?) Historical reasons? Just a serious question not trying to rile anyone up, I may also have a skewed perspective but admit I know some European cultures also fry a lot, but in a different way.

Cheers!

A man I know who is in his late 70's has been in the hospital twice in the last year. I want to ask if he is a police officer pictured in a rather famous photo from the Jim Crow era. Nothing violent, just standing on the wrong side of history, though I understand it was a different time.

He hinted about his presence on that particular day once a few years ago but I haven't found a way to bring it up without seeming to pry.

I know he was a police officer in that state at that time. I have researched the photo extensively but the officers aren't named anywhere but I think the resemblance is entirely possible.

Have any of you questioned people about events they'd rather forget? How did it go?

I am currently reading Henry Kissinger's book "On China." He argues, in a nutshell, that the cultural revolution was launched in order to provide Mao greater autonomy, especially in geopolitics, during the Cold War. He downplays ideology and internal concerns (for obvious reasons given his position). This one question is actually two:

(1) to what extent is this explanation plausible? (2) what are some other alternative explanations (aside from the "continuous revolution" explanation)?

I understand the (a) basic tenants of Maoism and (b) the political and economic structure of the Maoist era.

The Red Army in WW2 was notorious for having extremely high losses. Early in the war, the high losses were explained by the shock of the invasion, little training, suicidal frontal assaults, and bad leadership decimated by the purges. But later in the war these problems were solved, yet the Soviets still suffered heavy losses. For example:

Battle of Kiev (1943): German losses=5,230 KIA from original strength 70,000 Soviet losses=6,491 KIA from original strength 200,000

Battle of the Korsun–Cherkassy Pocket (1944) German losses=30,000 casualties from original strength of 140,000 Soviet losses=79,000 from original strength of 336,700

Operation Bagration (1944): German losses=300,000-500,000 casualties from original strength of 1,036,760 Soviet losses=770,888 casualties from original strength of 2,331,700

Battle of Narva (1944) (German victory) German losses=68,000 casualties from original strength of 123,541 Soviet losses=480,000 casualties (!) from original strength of 200,000

Why did Soviet forces continue to suffer such high losses, even at the end of the war? Could it have been that the soldiers drank a lot (this was a problem in the Red Army)? Did they still use "human wave" frontal assaults?

[deleted]

I've heard that since Korea was an annexed territory of Japan, Koreans were also considered to be Japanese and that Korean-Americans were thus also sent to concentration camps. If so, I wouldn't be surprised. However, I've also heard that this isn't the case.

Heard this from a family member, just wondering whether or not its true. And can someone else give me more history about this said empire?

As I understand, Spain (and later other European countries) got immensely rich from the conquest of New Spain and the trade that followed. Wouldn't that have attracted the attention of the major Islamic empires? In the 16th century, all three powers (Ottomans, Mughals, and Safavids) had navies. Did they think of exploring the Atlantic? Or, were they too preoccupied with each other to care?

I'm doing some research on the death of King William Rufus in 1100 CE and wanted to find out some of the details on how royal hunts were held. A video I saw mentioned how hunting parties would sometimes include dozens of people but it didn't provide any sources I could follow up on unfortunately. Thanks!

I know that Bactria was a satrapy created after Alexander's conquests, and declared a kingdom when Diodotus I Soter rebelled. It was also a very wealthy city and one of the greatest outposts of Hellenic civilisation in the East.

But how did all the Greeks get there? It is strange that the Diadochi and their aristocracies were Macedonian, but Bactria was ruled by Hellenes. How did that happen? And not only that, Bactria was landlocked. It couldn't have been easy to travel by land all the way from Athens to Afghanistan. So how did Bactria wind up having such a large Greek population, and one which is supposed to have persisted for centuries?

And, finally, what was the ethnic arrangement like in Bactria? I assume it would be similar to Alexandria or Seleucia, ie Greeks and Macedonians were citizens, while the natives were subject peoples with curtailed rights. But was this actually the case?

Today whenever Elves are in a book, or a movie, or a game they always have pointy ears. I know the idea of elves has existed for a long time, but when were they first imagined to have pointy ears? Was it Tolkien? Or did he get the idea from something in medieval times? Also why do think this depiction is now so popular?

I'm asking about why America made the m16 and the Soviet Union made the ak47. Like what was the major need for these new guns?