Hey guys,

I have a great interest in Cold War history. One aspect of the Cold War that is of particular interest to me is the role of naval power on behalf of the United States and the Soviet Union. Can anybody recommend some reputable books which delve into this topic?

Many thanks,

-MrBGS93

It's something i've hearing a lot of people saying and this subreddit sounds like an interesting place to ask at. As far as i know there was a 4 century difference between the last invasion of muslims and the crusades but correct me if i'm wrong.

There seems to be a common idea of peasants being very dull and just working fields. I know peasants did not get organised education (like school, college etc), but how much general knowledge did they have? Say I'm a peasant living on the modern border between England and Wales in 1250. Would I know the kings of kingdoms such as France or Portugal? Would I know where Norway and Denmark are? Would I know about the Mongol horde sweeping in from Asia? Would I know, even, about the Dehli Sultans, in India, or the kingdoms of Africa? Any information about this would be appreciated.

After ~240 years since Wealth of Nations, capitalism and the idea that a merchant seeks profit from their efforts feels like a natural state of humanity. I understand the idea of bartering and exchanging for need, but how did people perceive trade strategically? How did people attempt to get rich without force?

Obviously China had some Buddhist vs Shinto conflicts at various times, but nothing that compares to the conflicts between muslims and Christians, or protestants and catholics.

One could just as easily reverse the question to why was there so much religous conflict in Europe and the middle east?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Do historians even use the word peasant? Is this word something that would have only been used in English-speaking countries or are there equivalents in other languages? Or is it maybe even anachronistic in use?

A lot of material suggests that lords and ladies would have a performer at their banquets and parties. Would this performer be the typical jester-type, juggling bread, banging his head on a door, telling dick-and-fart jokes for laughs? Or would there be more topical humor, an archaic "stand up comedian", who would tell jokes and riff on day-to-day happenings? Had comedy even evolved to that point by then?

Hello, I was just going through some books on the civil war I own, and came to the thought that I have no idea if Florida contributed to the war at all. I would ask a more educated person on the matter to inform me, what exactly was the situation in Florida during the war?

I ask because I recently learned that the anime/manga series Attack on Titan has quite a bit of hardcore Japanese nationalistic sub-themes going on and I'm curious as to the role nationalism has played in anime over the decades.

I heard a justification for China's annexation of Tibet was that tibetans were slaves under the theocracy of the Lama. I naturally take it with a grain of salt. So I pose the question above. I'd prefer an answer relating over the whole history of the theocracy, but an answer relating to post-qing tibet would be great too!

I watched this fantastic documentary called the Wings of Russia video series, and they spoke about how during the early days of the cold war, there were a number of airfields near the north pole, as it allowed for easier access in the event of nuclear war. Both sides did this to some extent, so was there ever any kind of conflict from having such forces in such a barren place?

I already own The Maya by Micheal D. Coe and Stephen Houston, but I would like to know more about the political situation (what states/kingdoms existed, who ruled them, what wars happened - the book I have doesn't go into very much detail on this) on the Yucatan Peninsula in the late Postclassic, specifically information on the period between the formation of the Aztec Triple Alliance and the Spanish Conquest. (So I guess from 1428 - 1520s) Are there any good sources I could use? I understand information on this period is scarce, but anything related to the political situation would be helpful.

I have been watching the TV show Vikings recently and innacuracies aside it is an entertaining show. I was wondering how long Scandanavian longships would take to reach places like Lindisfarne and Paris. I don't know if this is the correct place to ask but any answers are much appreciated.

I just finished reading "The Templars" by Barbara Frale and I really enjoyed it. However, I found that for a book so well researched and all together in depth, it seemed to be lacking quite a bit of information I thought was pivotal to templar history. Then I remembered that a lot of that information I was expecting to see elaborated on by Frale were all things I had originally heard from the history channel and Wikipedia. I know both sources have been known to streamline things or just be flat out wrong on occasion, so I'm here asking you all in hopes of getting some answers.

Did 9 Templars really go to Jerusalem and find holy relics and hidden information regarding early Christianity?" The HC documentary I saw mentioned that 9 templars went to Jerusalem originally and found a lot of holy relics and information that made them rich when they went back to Europe (as well as helped them build the great cathedrals). Frale never mentions anything like this. From what I remember in the book, it was Constantine that ordered the search for the Christian relics, which were later taken from the Byzantines when the crusaders besieged Constantinople.

Why did Philip the Fair hate the Templars? HC said that the Templars had too much of a foothold within France, which Philip did not like. He was afraid they would start their own state within his land. HC also claimed that the Templars owed his kingdom a lot of money from previous wars (which I don't get because I thought they had enough money from tax exemptions and donations from the Church). Frale I'm sure gave many reasons why Philip the Fair didn't look too highly on the Templars, but the book was crammed with so much information I can't recall every detail. From what I remember, Philip believed the Templars were heretics. It was under those charges that the Church conducted their interrogations of some of the Order's members, but I feel like a hatred that strong for the Templars had to be rooted more in something else for Philip to want the whole order done away with.

Did Philip really appoint an unofficial Pope to help persecute the Templars? This one may be a misunderstanding on my part. Based on my notes of the HC documentary, Philip appointed his own unofficial Pope to aid in his persecution of the Templars in France. This was done because the reigning Pope at the time, Clement V, was sympathetic to the Templar Order and didn't feel the same way about them that Philip did. Philip goes behind the actual Pope's back and elects his own. The pope he elects is Bertand de got. Here's where I'm confused though. Wiki says that Clement V is Bertand de Got, and that he was on Philip's side in destroying the Temple. Frale made it seem as though Clement was on the side of the Templars.

Frale's book was interesting, but it has so much information that I'm sure I'm getting parts of her text mixed up with Wiki and HC (especially in that last question there). My hope's here are to be led in the right direction, and not cause more confusion or spread misinformation.

[deleted]

So did Cesar's take over of Rome and conversion into a dictatorship lead heavily to the down fall or did that start in the senate days? Or do I have my history all wrong

[deleted]

There had already been two kings of England named Edward before, why is it they weren't taken into account? What's even more is that Henry III even named him that because he adored Edward the Confessor, so it seems even more odd.

Honestly a random thought. If Britians considered it a Civil War, when did it enter nomenclature as a revolutionary one?