[deleted]

Specifically, I'm looking for the researched sources used for the film Amistad, Steven Spielberg (1997). I feel like I've scoured the internet with no luck. Thanks

Growing up I assumed that "Jesus" was a completely unique and unused name until the time of Jesus of Nazareth.

Obviously the name has been translated so I'm not sure what he would have been called at the time in native tongue.

It seems funny to imagine that cavemen were tossing snowballs at each other once upon a time or at least before christ.

This came up today in a class I'm taking, and I never really thought about it. Receiving communion in a Catholic church requires drinking wine, but the sale of wine would have been illegal during Prohibition. Was there an exception made (would that have even been legal), did the practice continue in defiance of the law, or was it just not done? My broader question is really were there any exceptions to the alcohol ban, particularly in regards to religious use?

Why weren't NHL players at the time chosen to be on the roster?

I have been trying to read more about the former president, as I think he is simply fascinating. However I've recently encountered books that have a bit of bias - i.e. "Theodore the Great: Conservative Crusader" by Daniel Ruddy. While I have no issue with people pleading their case about what they think T.R.'s ideals were, I just want to find the best and most detailed books about his life and his political experiences from an unbiased (not pushing conservatism or liberalism) viewpoint. If anyone has any recommendations please let me know!

My self-admittedly sloppy professor claims that Einstein started this trend.

I'm in need of some help researching this subject for a mock exam, and if you're not interested in doing a long writeup, could you help me with finding some good sources so I can research on my own? I've been reading stuff like textbooks, Wikipedia, etc. but I'm struggling to find any good non-encyclopedic sources.
So basically I understand that the Versailles treaty and a need for revenge after losing WW1 inspired nationalistic feelings which helped the dictators rise to power, but I don't understand how several oppressive parties like the Nazis could get the power legally, pretty much at the same time?

So I have two questions here.

1. Is it believed, in general, that Geoffrey's work was mostly fictional and he knew it, or did he believe most of what he wrote?

2. How widely was the History of the Kings of Britain accepted as fact in its day? I know some, such as William of Newburgh, didn't accept its authenticity, but would the common man have mostly treated it as truth?

Thanks!

Napoleon's ill-fated march on Moscow in 1812 is often cited as one of the key events that contributed to his downfall. Would it be an accurate assessment to attribute its failure to overconfidence and a lack of planning or was there a good deal of sheer bad luck involved?

After World War II when the United States gained Alaska and Hawaii, which branch of government decided on the official design of the new flag? In the past (19th century and before) I don't believe there was much regulation which lead to many alternative arrangements of stars in the canton, however the more recent flags (20th century onward) seem to have an official design chosen by the government.

Thanks.

Hey everyone, got kind of a weird question today. So I'm working on multi-ethnic army units in the Austrian Army during the First World War, with my evidence coming from soldiers' diaries and memoirs. I've got this one in front of me in which the Czech soldier appears to use a bastardized German word, transliterating it into Czech orthography in his diary. The word in Czech is "tákšars," in this context referring to a commissioned officer - denní důstojník" tasked with the duty of handing out daily guard duty and other soldierly activities to the enlisted. The word tákšars isn't Czech at all, and I suspect it comes from a German word referring to an officer with "daily duties" or something of that nature. The first part of the word seems obvious: "ták-" corresponds the German "Tag-" but the second part of the word is really throwing me for a loop. Transliterating the word fragment into German would yield something like "schars" or "scharz" or maybe "schärs." Can anyone figure out what this second bit might be? It would really help me out and would be a great piece of evidence in my paper, but I'm hesitant to use it without knowing what the actual German word is.

I'm gonna add here that ELI5 would be nice, but some things might be more difficult to explain so if it's not a simple answer then don't worry about making it easy, i just want to know!

Edit: phrasing

Hello fellow historians.

I forgot which source I got this from, but I heard LDS(Mormon) president Heber J. Grant wanted to collaborate with the Nazis by using the missionaries serving in Germany and creating some type of pact. I am trying to figure it out if this is true or not.

If you historians have any information/sources about this subject please let me know.

Thank you.

There's a story going around that Muslims consider dogs "unclean" (English translation of haram??) on a religious basis which is completely unfamiliar to me as someone who grew up Muslim and has a dog. Did Arabs keep dogs for the purposes of herding or other activities? Did they have any relationship with them?

Pre-1991, before internet connectivity truly penetrated the mainstream, how would conspiracy theories, say, for example, the assassination of JFK, have been spread?

I've been researching this topic a bit. It seems that the 'old' view of the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, derived from Gildas, Bede and The Anglo-Saxon chronicle has now fallen out of favour? (Vortigern hiring Saxon mercenaries lead by Hengist and Horsa to fight off Picts and Scotti, then switching from mercenary ally to full out invaders,etc...)

So was it more of a migration over hundreds of years, and not the 'Adventus Saxonum' that started all at once in the first half of the 5th century? Especially if you consider the possible settlement of earlier Germanic people in Britain who were part of the Roman defense of Britain when it was still part of the empire. I've also hear it argued that there may not have been this strict ethnic devide with Celtic-Romano Britians on one side and Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians on the other.

I'm a bit loss, possibly because I'm Canadian and this wasn't part of a standard education in elementary/high school. For reference I'm currently reading a book by Guy Halsall - Worlds of Arthur.

I'm thinking of individuals like Cosimo de' Medici (Tuscany) and Philip the Good (Burgundy).