I was just reading about Hieronymus of Cardia and his History of the Successors.

I was wondering, how was it that primary sources from this era (that were well known enough for us to know they existed) totally disappeared, and how possible is it that an archeological dig could still turn up these lost works?

I guess I should also expand it to how do all executioners get paid? I mean....that must have been a part-time job, where he was an aspiring chef and then chops some heads off on a weekend or two a month right? Or was he a full time executioner because there was just that many heads to needs chopping?

Hope this answers your question as well Jeremy!

I know that various cultures obviously interacted with each other and likely spread stories, but how did these creatures come to be so prominent in the cultures that they're found in?

To be clear, I'm referring to European dragons, Chinese dragons, Quetzalcoatl, The Leviathan, and so on.

How is that Vercingetorix could lead thousands against Caesar?

For example, could a wealthy businessman travel from New York to London for matters of important business? Or did you in some way need to be connected to the war effort to be able to travel?

Basically if Germans, Scythians etc are said to have a temple to Zeus is that name just being used analogically to refer to "the deity considered king of the gods" or was it more literal and taken to mean that the people in question would have the same myths and stories about this god as the Greeks and Romans did?

The question often comes up as to if there has ever been a society ruled by women rather than men, and the answer is always "the Amazons." However, not once have I learned anything more detailed than merely their name in school and college. A few questions come to mind:

-To what extent were they real?

-Was it a society only of women or of women and men as equals?

-If they are to some extent mythological, are there well-known myths?

-Is there some dispute to their history?

I'm not sure if this question is too broad, but I'm curious to know if there were distinguishing differences between the various knights and men-at-arms of the major Kingdoms of Europe during the High and Late Middle Ages, particularly around the time of the Hundred Years' War.

For instance, aside from language and basic cultural differences that would come with any different region, were there major variations in the doctrine or codes of conduct expected of knights and men-at-arms from France, England and the various Kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire around the time if the Hundred Years' War? Did they, for instance, favor different tactics in battle to any notable degree or have distinguishing characteristics that generally set then apart from the knights of other places in Western Europe?

Did French, English, "German" or other knights of the time vary significantly in their preferred arms and/or armor? Did any of the Kingdoms specifically put more focus on one aspect of warfare (Heavy armored cavalry, light cavalry, infantry, missile/archers, etc...) above the others?

Did any of the major powers and their fighting knights and men-at-arms of the time excel at any specific type of warfare over the others? For instance, did some Kingdoms notably produce better or more successful cavalry or pikemen or tacticians than others?

And were there any major differences in how the Knights from France, England and the HRE Kingdoms were trained for combat, insofar as having distinct styles of sword fighting (I've heard there were various different European schools of swordsmanship. Was this around during the High middle ages? If so, what were the notable differences between the major schools?) or with a larger focus on different weaponry?

Saw the story of Count Von Shilssengourg in a Ripley's Museum. He was 6' 11.5" tall and was sentenced to 20 years to spend in a 4 feet cell because his trousers split as he was following protocol by bending down to kiss the hand of the Petite Empress Anne.

Could not find any articles of what happened to him. Can anybody provide some information.

[deleted]

Rodrigo Borgia was vice chancellor of the church before becoming pope. What exactly did this job entail and how powerful was it

I'm currently reading through Jonathon D. Spence's The Search for Modern China. In chapter 4, under the section entitled "The Center and Channels of Power," Spence discusses how Yongzheng was able to use newly consolidated power to better coordinate his forces against both the Zunghars and the Miao. Why were the Miao subdued while the Zunghars were able to achieve victory against the Chinese forces and were only defeated during Qianlong? Any clarification and additional details on these events would be much appreciated.

The way I most often hear about WWI, whether in high school and college classes or in places like Dan Carlin's hardcore history or The Great War youtube series is as a calamitous and avoidable series of mistakes that resolved nothing and set the stage for WWII.

Are there any alternative views, whether by modern historians or by politicians immediately after the war trying to justify it, portraying it as a fight of liberal democracies against monarchical empires, or questioning the directness of the connection to WWII (Italy, for instance, was a winner in WWI yet also the root of fascism), or considering it a calamitous and avoidable mistake but for different-than-usual reasons?

Between the Confederate offensives into Maryland and Pennsylvania, and the battles which took place in the Midwestern border states, I can imagine that Union forces may have requisitioned food, supplies, horses, and shelter from civilians without their enthusiastic consent.

Did any people sue the Federal government after the war for violation of the Third Amendment?