This is what a white nationalist think tank alleges. Here is a blog post.

I hope it isn't true.

I know the Byzantines had temporary successes and periods of stability under good emperors, but even Justinian's successes didn't last long and once the Levant and North Africa was lost, the Byzantines stopped any major expansion. The more land they gained, the more of a liability it became. However the Ottomans thrived as a power that had long and distant borders. Why didn't the Ottomans run into the same issues as the Byzantines?

I understand HOW they were militaristic, I've heard of the Agoge, the special constitution, being trained since age seven and the like, but I'm curious as to what motivated them to organise in such a way? Why devote the entire state structure and lifestyle to militarism when no other state in Greece (that I know of) seems to have done the same? Was there some sort of treasure they were trying to protect? was there some special quality of the land or people? did it have something to do with their religious beliefs? That is what I am wondering.

Now obviously Spanish is a Romance language and descended from Latin, but why have other Romance languages diverged much from Latin while Spanish has remained rather conservative? French has Celtic pronunciation and nasal elements, Romanian has Slavic elements, and it makes sense for Italian to be close to Latin as the heart of the Roman Empire. But Spanish doesn't seem to have much features from its pre-Latin languages. Research has turned up that the original Iberian languages were related to Basque but Spanish doesn't seem particularly "Basque-sounding" or picked up its phonology. Shouldn't it make more sense for Spanish to have retained many "non-Latin" features like French and Romanian?

He was decorated and involved with fighting on the Rhine (222nd rainbow) and with the liberation of dachau, however im parsing the letters to find more info about specific events.

To start with, I'm not sure how often was to have disabled veterans of war, as I guess probably death rate was high for those severely wounded, given the medicine of the time.

But on the other hand, I suppose that for those that survived, disability could be something usual. In wars fought with swords, I imagine it would be relatively usual to lose some of your limbs.

My question is: what was the life of a disabled war veteran like in Rome, during the Republic and the Empire? Were they condemned to begging? Did the State set some sort of "charity" for them (maybe through temples or something like that)?

On the other hand, how usual was to survive the war? It was common to see mutilated veterans in Roman cities?

I understand during the recordings that they usually used either a wax recording disc that would adjust to the pitch of the music being played, but how did this happen for mass production? Some sort of machine that read the master and used the crescents and dips of the grooves to grind the same pattern into the new LPs?

Follow-up to that other question about a 1900 historian's possible "misconceptions" from our point of view. I know technology played a big role in terms of our gaining raw data about ancient history, but I don't know what was discovered when. How big would the gap between our understanding of ancient cultures and the 1900 historian's be?

Somewhat predominant anyway, at least to the existent breaking it is noticeable

What did people think of static electricity before we understood it?

In the title "A knight of the seven kingdoms", a fictional tale by George R.R. Martin, 'Hedge knights' are core elements in this book (the main character being squire to one), the writer describes them as being freelance knights who live on the road, travel light, generally poor, and serve under who ever hires them and participate in any activities that bring them profit weather it be banditry or tournaments or serving under many lords, while mercenaries were a common thing in most militaries throughout history, I wonder if these hedge knights were a common phenomena in the medieval ages and if they were true at all? were all knights rich lords with plots of lands or were there such knights who slept under bushes and travelled and serve under many lords to make a living as mercenaries?

Currently, Queen Elizabeth has very little power within the actual British government, and she is regarded for of a figurehead. During the American Revolution, was King George's powers similarly neutered? For instance, if George had felt like bestowing more rights to colonial citizens could he have done it? Did he or Lord North have more actual power within the government?

I read that 16th century Protestant societies were similar to Wahhabism. That Calvin rejected heliocentrism, and Renaissance art and humanism was banned. And that they were violent and destructive of art (like Wahhabis). How true is this and the comparison?

Queen of England

(I don't have a history degree, and I want to know if what I've listed is true or not)

• In Classical Latin 'C' was pronounced as 'K', which is why Caesar was pronounced as "Kaisar"

• The title was later used by the German Kaisers of The Holy Roman Empire

• The Tsardom of Russia also used the title. The alternate spelling for Tsar is Czar, which means Kaiser

• The Holy Roman Empire and The Tsardom of Russia both considered themselves as "Third Rome" - The continuation of the Roman Empire. [Which Empire was the true Third Rome is still heavily debated today] - (Second Rome being The Eastern Roman Empire, later 'The Byzantine Empire')

• In World War 1, Russian Soldiers were known to have a chant in relation to retaking Constantinople, - Meaning that they wished to restore The Third Rome

It boggles the mind how something so absolutely fascinating as the continuation of The Roman Empire has been completely ignored in my education.

How I came across this was when researching the history behind the title of 'Kaiser'. There were no connections to the other information I've listed, and I had to connect dots on my own. It's quite odd how this has not been documented properly. Am I wrong? Honestly I'm asking. This is investigative history and I might very well have it all wrong.

I recently read 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' by William L. Shirer and am currently reading 'Hitler's Hangman: The Life of Heydrich' by Robert Gerwath. These books have piqued an interest in secret policing/intelligence work, and I'd like to learn more, not just about the history of the organizations involved but about their structures, methods, and effectiveness. I'm looking for books about anything from the Stasi to the CIA to Joseph Fouche, and I'd be happy to know what people in this sub would recommend.