[deleted]

Asides from the Watergate scandal, it's my understanding that he actually did some very important things for the United States. Under his administration we ended the Vietnam War, conducted the Moon Landing, opened relations with China, ended the draft, founded the EPA, created national cancer treatment centers and set up funding for cancer research, initiated desegregation in southern schools, among many other things. I understand that Watergate was a big ordeal and exposed major corruption but, being honest, aren't most politicians corrupt? It seems like he just got caught being unethical, and that became his legacy. Am I missing anything?

I know this is weird, but considering how a person sailing around the Mediterranean in 1400 AD would only see the coastline within his eyesight and not from a bird's eye view, how did people create maps, that for their times, were rather accurate? Did someone simply walk around a coastline and draw every little indent?

This is with regards to the recent news of G.W.H. Bush voting for Hillary Clinton. Is this unprecedented?

Compared to WWI and WWII. The anti-war movement is always showcased in Vietnam documentaries,movies,etc. Was this because the rise of civil rights movement on the US?

As I've understood it the total warfare of WWI made it different from many earlier wars that occupied the European powers in that it concerned not only the professional army in the field but mobilised most of the countries involved for the war effort. It seems to me like this would mean that keeping the people enthusiastic about the war would be rather important. On the other hand I can't quite see how the goals and reasons for the war where relevant to the average person on the street, especially in those countries that where drawn in through alliances rather than having a stake of their own.

So, were people in these countries enthusiastic about the war and what were their motivations if they were?

Also, if I've gotten my view all backwards please set me straight!

[deleted]

Would it sound British or would it be more how it sounds today?

I read A Storm of Spears a couple months ago, and I found it very compelling in how systematically Matthews examined every facet of hoplite combat. With that being said, I have wondered if other historians have generally accepted his work. The book did have blurbs on it by other historians, and the few reviews I read were favorable, but I feel that a work that goes so much against the old accepted model of hoplite warfare must have some detractors.

Moving this post from the medieval history subreddit after getting no good answers...

Right now I'm writing a little blog post on the history of the word RELIGION, and this will requires making some general statements about life in different time periods. What can we say, without too many caveats, about religious life in medieval Europe ON THE WHOLE? I'm going to have to omit a lot in that errand. Is it entirely foolish?

I think I can say for certain that every stereotype of the 'dark ages' is contested. So what is actually safe to say? Yes, religion is always plural in pockets of society -- can we still safely say that the general consensus in daily life was 'act Christian or die', or is this just a popular stereotype with little evidence to back it? Can we say that Christianity was the central root of the Crusades, generally, or is this such a complex topic that any two-sentence summary is doomed?

If you've got the knowledge, please let me know. There is so much written on these topics, I would need years to form solid conclusions on my own (and the medieval period will only be 2 paragraphs in my little essay).

If you think general things can or cannot be said about these topics, why?

I appreciate your time!

I have some questions about the possibility of introducing a habit of sources only responses in certain circumstances.

For any given question I would prefer the solid answers that make me love this subreddit so much, but the problem is that so many questions go unanswered.

However I would bet that a fair portion of these questions are viewed by someone with at least periphery academic knowledge of the subject that lack just enough knowledge to give an answer. They might mostly know the answer, and know where to look, but aren't able or willing to spend a few hours brushing up and researching enough to feel comfortable giving a solid response. And this is fine, but what I would love to see is a trend of those users posting something along the lines of, "I can't give an answer up to askhistorians' standards, but I would bet you can find the answers here...{List of sources and authors and brief descriptions}."

Would a user simply posting "I can't answer but look here" be against the subreddit's rules? The rules seem to discourage just posting sources, (with the exception of questions looking for sources), but not explicitly disallow them, and imply that the main problem is sources with no context, not an inherent flaw with a sources only response.

Are there some potential problems with this I'm not seeing? (Bad sources too risky, etc).

If this is allowed is the general consensus of the mods and users that this would be a good trend?

If so, how would we encourage this habit?

Edit: Just to make certain, I am referring to this with the assumption that the author is putting in the proper context to their sources and how they will relate to the answer. These posts would still take a well thought out in depth approach, they just will not directly answer the question because the poster does not feel they can quite answer to standard. This poster would still be expected to have basic knowledge of the topic, and in depth knowledge of the field/sources that would be most relevant. Perhaps they learned about this several years ago and do not remember details, or have discussed the topic in depth before but do not feel they are an authority, although they are decently versed, etc.

The "Total War" series features several factions (Numidia, Pontus, Armenia) having "copycat" legionaries; troops fighting in the Roman style. I know it's just a video game but I'm curious all the same:

Is this backed up with facts or is it pure fantasy/speculation?

If so, did the Celts/Germans adopt Roman tactics as well?

When the US soldiers liberated camp Dachau at the end of the Second World War, they excecuted many of the German soldiers present after they had surrendered. Are there other infamous occasions of war crimes by the allied forces in the Second World War? I am a student of history looking for a subject for my Bachelor Thesis. I'd like to learn more about instances we usually do not really hear about because the Allies ultimately won the war.

What advantages did they have that their adversaries lacked? What little I can find on them says they were very well trained, was there any sort of horsemanship culture in Finland at the time? What made Finnish, not Swedish, horseman preferred?