During the time there was obviously massive emphasis on resistance (home guard/auxiliary units, fortifying of beaches, accelerating attempts to get the US to join the war) but was there any support or plans for surrendering or negotiating with Germany? Rather than continuing to hold out alone.

We all see him depicted in both history books and media as a wife-beheading guy who had a lot of wives, but I'm not knowledgable enough to know if six really is all that especially large a number for European history of the time for a century before and after, or if having any number of your spouses killed was that a-historical, or if it's that he did it twice. I know when I was a kid I was under the impression he had all but maybe one of his wive's killed, so many that's why I'm biased to thinking it's not as shocking as it really is, even in context.

Is it really THAT a-typical, or is it such a compelling story to us because he was the father of two of the most famous Queen's in English history and his own reign presided over a very pivotal moment during the protestant reformation.

I apologize if this is too vague of a question, but I do know monarchs of the past had many wives and executing a spouse was not uncommon, or am I mistaken? Or is it only not uncommon when looking at the entire historical record of Europe in the medieval era, but still an incredibly rare thing to have happen.

Thanks /r/askhistorians.

Hello historians of reddit. I need some opinions and personal experience here.

I've always genuinely loved learning history. As a young child, while everyone else my age would be watching cartoons and whatnot, I'd watch history documentaries with my father. As I got older I excelled in every history class I took, often going out of my way to purposely learn more than I even needed to pass. I love it and I'm good at it.

I'm going to be applying to colleges soon (HS senior) and I've always thought I'd become a nurse. I also love things like biology and anatomy. But lately the more I think about it, I feel like I'd be so much happier with studying history. I've had people tell me to go for nursing and just minor in history, but I've also heard that a nursing curriculum is very rigorous and I wouldn't want to overload myself with work.

I'm torn. I know nursing will potentially bring me more money and a more stable job, but I'm in love with the art of history.

I want to hear the truth. I don't care if it's an ugly truth, as long as it's the truth. I need to decide what I want to do with my life soon and I'm caught between doing what I like for more financial stability or doing what I love with less of it.

Do you regret getting a degree in history? Is it worth it? What jobs have you been able to get with it?

Any help or personal experience would help me greatly.

I understand that these armies are professional (please correct if I am wrong). In peace times would they stay united or just go home and live their everyday life?

To define my question further, I am asking if Armored Codpieces were solely worn as an aesthetic 'fashion' item. Or there was some practical use, specifically whether it was to accommodate an 'enlargement' during battle as not to make the warrior untowardly uncomfortable.

I have searched google extensively but have not arrived at an answer (Perhaps that is answer enough), however I am hoping this community could shed some light on the matter?

I have lived in India a long time and technically India is a secular country. What this means in practice is that the government does not interfere in religious matters. My understanding of America system is that it is also similar.

However the French version (at least from recent events) is different. Atheism almost seems like the state religion (if atheism could be a religion). What historical events led to this version of secularism?

I was reading about Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük, and I learned that Göbekli is generally believed to have been a sanctuary, while Çatalhöyük was a settlement. So, what's the difference between a sanctuary and a settlement?

Compared to say flint how difficult was obsidian to produce? How does their utility compare? Compared to steel was it easier to produce? I'll set the scope to 15th century Mesoamerica, as I assume that would be the period with the most refined methods of producing obsidian.

In Korea, the UN forces consistently entered North Korea and many a battles were fought there.

What were the reasons for why North Vietnam was never entered? And is this considered a primary reason why South Vietnam and the US did not win the war?

[deleted]

I wonder if survival of ancient texts is due to the fact that there are multiple copies scattered in a number of places or is it just good luck?

Was there any movement or grouping of people who denied its existence aftee its redicovery in the 15th and 16th centuries? I know a lot of people have denied scientific discoveries, or more recently things like the Holocaust and the moon landing. Anyone believe the new world was a load of crap.

I don't know a huge amount about the Nixon administration. I know about Watergate, I know he ended the Vietnam War, opened relations with China, and a few other things, but I'd like to know if there are any well regarded books that look at his presidency as a whole. I'm also interested in his later years as an elder statesman and maybe his pre-presidential years.

Thanks!

I'm under the impression that the Chinese emperor was held in power through some sort of quasi-religious concept of the world that placed China as the center of the universe and gave the emperor legitimacy through the Mandate of Heaven. Christianity seems to me as highly incompatible with the idea of a divinely sanctioned, non-Christian emperor who the world revolves around. Was Chinese Christianity somehow compatible with the Confucian/imperial mindset? Did Christians (other than the Taiping Rebellion), who denied the Mandate of Heaven, ever pose a threat to the emperor? Did emperors ever see Christians as a dangerous 5th column because of their beliefs?

My history professor said today in her lecture that the sea people were refugees from the Thera eruption and tsunami that needed new places to live so they conquered the Hittite Empire, The Babylonian Empire, Mycenae, and almost Egypt. This seemed wonky to me, and I looked it up after class because I seemed to remember seeing a documentary that said we don't know who the Sea People really were, and none of the sources that I found agreed with her lecture. In fact, I found many sources saying that there wasn't actually a 500 ft tall tsunami like she said and the sea people's origins are a mystery.The way she put it, the Thera eruption and invasions of the Sea People single handedly caused the Bronze Age Collapse. This doesn't fit with what I found online at all, or what I previously knew. I am debating on whether or not to withdraw from the class, I don't want to keep getting faulty information. Is my professor dead wrong? It is a community college after all, and she has said some questionable things before

By "Christian" I don't mean whether or not they expounded Christian virtues, but to what extent did they align with mainstream Christianity? Were the Taiping armies made up entirely of Christians or were the majority of the people loyal to the Heavenly Kingdom followers of Confucianism/Chinese traditional religion?