Hello!

I'm reading Wolf Hall and trying to wrap my head around what church powers looked like prior to the various protestant reformations, specifically as they relate to national jurisdiction.

A passage in Wolf Hall states:

On May 15th [1538], the bishops sign a document of submission to the king. They will not make new church legislation without the king's license, and will submit all existing laws to a review by a commission which will include laymen-member's of Parliament and the king's appointees. They will not meet in Convocation without the king's permission.

My understanding is that any church laws are made by the greater Catholic church under the Pope and its various bodies irregardless to national and civil boarders. What powers did English bishops have that are being curbed here? In the time of Henry VIII, what variations in Catholic practice occurred on a country by country basis?

I don't know how true it is worldwide, but at least in the United States, baseball and softball are very gender based, and it seems like it has been that way for quite some time, although not always. Why did such a sharp, cultural division come about with this sport, as opposed to others such as soccer or basketball, which see both genders playing essentially the same sport, instead of women pushed into a similar, but distinctly different, mimic of the "Man's" game?

Reading about the Mongol Empires ability to field and deploy vast armies going in all directions begs the question of how many people actually lived in the Empire to be able to field such armies, and how many of these were people that identified as Mongol.

Bonus: Were the Mongol armies consist primarily of Mongols or were they mainly made up of people from captured regions?

Sorry about the English.

What was the significance of naming almost every (ancient to early modern) time period in Chinese history as a "dynasty"?

Hello!

I thought of this question recently while watching "The Great War" series on youtube, in which it is noted that German General August Von Mackensen died in late 1945, after the end of WW2. One of the common themes noted regarding WW1 is the clash between old style tactics and thinking, and new age technology; WW2, on the other hand, was very much a war of more modernized thinking. So, what did WW1 military leaders like Mackensen think about the second world war, the way it was fought, conducted, and ended? Did they hold disdain for the new ways of fighting wars, or did they embrace it? It's something I find to quite interesting, so all responses are appreciated!

I'm looking for a Christmas gift for my father. He recently told me he would love to find a solid book or series of books on the history of the United States.

He's 54 and doesn't enjoy books that are really "scholarly" in tone if that makes sense.

If you guys have any recommendations for an engaging adventure through history I would appreciate it!

P.s. bonus points for audio books.

Where exactly did the hard "P" pronunciation come from? And why do we use two different names to refer to the Biblical-era Philistines and the modern Palestinians, when the name they call themselves sounds much closer to the former?

[deleted]

Were the delta blues a popular genre around the 1920s-1930s such as jazz or was it a more underground genre? In comparison to other major labels at the time, how prominent was Paramount Records in the music industry?

Most ex-European colonies that were originally characterized by indigenous religion are now at least 80% if not 90% Christian. Considering that the natives were generally treated horribly, how were they able to convince the natives to accept this foreign religion?

Based on how far he had gone, it seems that it would be nearly impossible to keep a full Greek army for his entire campaign. Did he rely on troops from his previously conquered lands to help him expand?

And how much evidence is there for it one way or the other?

What would people have worn during this period (particularly in north western europe) and what would it have been made of?

What did people wear to survive the very cold winters?

How would clothing have varied depending on wealth or social standing?

I've always been so very curious at comparing my life today to life of men my age in the Middle Ages. My question is directed at the "general population" of that time. Not nobility, royalty, or maybe not even military, just your "average" man/family.

I'm reading Bernal Diaz' account of the conquest of Mexico and he mentions a meeting with a group of ambassadors wherein the Spanish are referred to in a supernatural context, supposedly regarding a prophecy in which the Spanish are a long lost group of ancestors said to return to rule the land. I've heard this sort of thing before and as I recall, Charles Mann's 1491 cast some doubt on this, but Diaz notes being described with an Aztec word, "Teules", which according to him means deities and would seem to add some legitimacy to the tale. Can anyone cast some light on this? I know the study of Mesoamerica is a constantly shifting field.

Hello there, I've some questions relating to the demography and demographic change of Anatolia and the late Byzantine Empire.

1)After the Fall of Constantinople what happened to the Residents? Were they massacred, forced to flee or forcefully converted or naturally assimilated? 2) How did (eastern) Anatolia become a Turkish majority and Greek Minority (before the 1921 population exchange). Did the Turks have plantations similar to that of the English and Scots in my Native country of Ireland? 3)How long did it take for Greeks and Christianity to become minorities in (A) general (asian) Byzantine lands and (B) Constantinople after Islamic/Turkish conquest 4) What percentage of Turks are descended from Greeks? Did Greeks just end up becoming Turks like the Norse in Ireland became Norse-Gaels and then just plainly Irish? 5) Was central Anatolia ever Greek? What happened to rural Greek Byzantines even decades before the fall of Constantinople.

[deleted]