During a lecture on International Law the professor refereed to a 'set of rules' that were upheld in pitched battles. Such as not attacking the withdrawing army - which he called the "no-pursuit rule". When I asked him for a source, he refereed me to 'The Verdict of Battle: The Law of Victory and the Making of Modern War' by James Q. Whitman. Did such 'rules' really exist and did armies actually abide by these rules?

The Romans mostly seem to have made up the battle speeches (and the readers knew they were fake and read them for entertainment). Do we have any actual recorded battle speeches? Is it much different from Hollywood?

Let's take northwestern European universities like Oxford or La Sorbonne in the 13th c. if you need me to be more specific. How was the faculty structured, how were lecturers paid, what was tuition like for pupils, how did everyone involved feed and support themselves, was there a system of accreditation, etc. etc. etc. I'd be greatful if someone could just give me a snapshot of how the entire system worked.

Although sources I have read thus far have stressed the importance of the war and Japanese occupation, was this, the effective shattering of the myth of European superiority, the most important factor? What about nationalism before/after WWII? Or international pressure to decolonise (e.g.the Atlantic Charter in 1941)?

[deleted]

Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses up in 1517, but it wasn't until the late 1520s to 1530s that Henry VIII kickstarted the English Reformation, so up to that point, it was still Catholic. By that point, had Protestantism made any inroads into the country though, and if so, what was pre-COE English Protestantism like?

Additionally, when Henry's 'reforms' started up, while borrowing from Protestant rhetoric perhaps, the COE definitely took a different path, so how did existing Protestants engage with this shift?

[deleted]

Welcome back to Monday Methods and our ongoing series about Grad School.

Today I want to encourage user to share their experiences on the subjects of how to heigthen their chances of getting in. What are good strategies to get accepted? What do I do if I don't get in the first time? What could my Plan B look like? What do schools look for?

In this double feature, I also want to encourage those with expertise to share some stuff about what happens after you get in? How much work do you have to expect? How's this all work? And finally and in light of recent findings on the immense stress of grad school, what are strategies to get through this with a minimum of mental problems?

Thank you so much for everyone who has stuck with us so far and especially to everyone who has shared their experience.

Next week will be the last of the Grad School series: The Aftermath.

Thank you!

I'm currently documenting sources from Julian the Apostate for a paper later this semester, and I'm wondering if anyone can help me out here. I'm looking for a way to determine how Julian's satirical work "Symposium" from 361 AD survived.

In case people don't know what I'm talking about: it's also known as "the Caesars". You can find a translation by simply googling that.

All I know is that many other works critical of Christianity around this time survived through commentaries by later Christian authors, but I can't find a reliable source (i.e. anything other than Wikipedia).

Who and how were the original inhabitants of Britain before the Saxons? Were they Celtic genetically or something else?

How did the Saxons go about assimilating/joining the pre-existing culture and society?

Why didn't the Saxons maintain relations with their Germanic brethren on the mainland?

Did some Saxons go to the Irish isles and try the same thing?

I tried to research this (on Google, mind you) and was met with links to forums where people were politically charged. Thank you in advance!

As far as I know the Japanese in WWII were considered cruel and unethical compared to other nations, but when I've read about their previous wars I didn't find any atrocities that were special only to the Japanese, So how come WWII was so different?

Thanks in advance for the answers!

Besides your arrowheads and axes , what other signs or evidence is there of the natives existence ? It's fascinating to me to think of visiting places of times past, and even more fascinating to find a place that hasn't been found yet! I'm under the impression that any mountain with 'trails' is already all explored.

I recently came across this text by Xenophon:

Lycurgus adopted a system opposed to all of these alike [referring to pederasty]. Given that some one, himself being all that a man ought to be, should in admiration of a boy’s soul endeavour to discover in him a true friend without reproach, and to consort with him — this was a relationship which Lycurgus commended, and indeed regarded as the noblest type of bringing up. But if, as was evident, it was not an attachment to the soul, but a yearning merely towards the body, he stamped this thing as foul and horrible; and with this result, to the credit of Lycurgus be it said, that in Lacedaemon the relationship of lover and beloved is like that of parent and child or brother and brother where carnal appetite is in abeyance. (Constituion of the Lacedemonians, II, 13-14)

Then there's this passage in Plutarch as well:

Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing was deprived of all civic rights for life. (Moralia, The Ancient Customs of the Spartans, 7)

I had always thought that homosexual practice was essential in Spartan educative institutions and military, but these excerpts seem to imply that it was actually frowned upon, at least as far as man-boy relationships are concerned. Was I misinformed, or is there actually other sources or evidence which contradict Xenophon and Plutarch? These sources speak only of pederasty, but what about sexual relationships among soldiers?

Edit: It seems that there are three comments here, but I can't see them!?

I'm not counting medicinal liquors in China or Europe, I want to know when the first folk who had a few shots and thought this could make for a good party existed. According to wikipedia, the Irish, Italians, German, and Chinese may have had it around the 12th century, but every link I click from there mentions medicinal uses. I'm more in the market for liver destroying uses. Thanks in advance!

I went through both Napoleon Bonaparte's tactics and that of Gustavus Adolphus. Both brought brand new tactics to the battlefield and elevated their nations to great power status. Napoleon's wars caused neighboring powers to reconsider and adopt their tactics, planting the roots for Prussian Military restructuring and the German Staff System.

Gustavus Adolphus, however, did not have a similar impact, despite being given the title "Father of Modern Warfare".

In the event that I am sorely mistaken, did Gustavus Adolphus trigger a similar level of military restructuring? Were there any European Military that actively implemented his changes?