I have heard some historians say that the orthodox interpretation of Franco's status as a fascist is misleading. While he allied himself with fascist forces, they argue that while he was a rightist authoritarian his commitment to fascism was not strong, and that he essentially only adopted the branding of fascism as a way to present himself as an opponent of communism in Spain. I would like to hear some thoughts on this and get a sense of the dynamics of the debate.

I know that the British made several laws restricting rights based on the caste system, but to what extent did they strengthen or weaken the caste system?

Was there more or less potential for caste mobility before or during British rule?

So I'm mexican myself and I have two surnames. Every single hispanic I've encountered has two surnames or more (although compound surnames count as one.) Why is this convention present in hispanic surnames and not, for example, in french or english surnames?

By freedom of religion, I mean some law or constitution that includes "prohibiting the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion" like the first amendment.

By just before, I mean the years in Germany before Hitler rose to power.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm confused about whether the Picts became the scots or if the scots were a different group who came from somewhere else?

I know that the term "Feudalism" is not the correct one, but I'm trying to reach it's general meaning aplied to this particular time.

How the administration on Italy worked on the times of emperor Louis II? Did the noble ranks that we see in later centuries (baron, count, knight, etc) already exist here, or have an equivalent? Was governance as ritualist and moralist as in the times of Charlemagne?

In A Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire there are is an order of secular scholastics called Maesters whose purpose is to serve the government in the matters of their experience. They wear chains with metals to signify their experience.

Gold - money and accounting Silver - medicine and healing Iron - warcraft Black iron - ravenry Lead - poison Copper - history Bronze - astronomy Steel - construction Electrum - astrology Pale steel - smithing Valyrian steel - "the higher mysteries" (i.e. magic)

Was there anything like this in human societies before the advent of public universities?

curious on how we managed to have universal number system

Specifically right up to it. I remember reading about a few Black explorers, got my curiosity up. Any help?

We tend to think of the British Empire as being immensely powerful, but I was surprised to learn that when WWI broke out, Britain had a small (though professional and well trained) military of around six divisions. Weren't they still profiting immensely from the resources of their many colonies? Any answers are very much appreciated!

I'm trying to compile a full list of British Empire troops mobilized and their subsequent losses in WW1. It's very easy to find this for most of the Empire, but I'm having trouble finding numbers of British African troops raised and subsequently killed.

Help would be appreciated.

First of all, let us define 'victory' in this scenario as the axis countries (Germany and Japan, mainly) successfully holding the majority of the territory they captured and creating a stable platform for further expansion, if desired.

My friend's argument boils down to the claim that the early successes of these countries was largely due to the fact they had been /preparing/ for war in one respect or another (by building armies, weapons, etc.) and caught the invaded nations by surprise.

He goes on to insist it was this surplus, more than any tactical superiority, that contributed to their initial notoriety and that once the allied war industry was in full swing their number was essentially up. According to him arguments of military prowess, cunning battle tactics, and superior technology on behalf of the axis powers are largely the effect of postwar culture making them seem bigger and menacing than they actually were in order to make the allied nations that much more impressive for defeating them, but that in actuality the rigid authoritarian hierarchy of the German and Japanese empires made them either creatively or bureaucratically stunted and ill-equipped to adapt to the allies once they got their feet on the ground.

So in essence, how much of this is true? Were the Axis countries ultimately bound to fail in keeping their territory, and has their threat (Not their atrocities mind you, but their 'threat' as a military enemy) been exaggerated in the decades since to make the Allies seem like the underdog?

What were the Nazi's fortifications like? What were their numbers in comparison to the opposing forces? Lastly were they aware of the invasion? Sorry, ton of questions I'm watching band of brothers again.

[deleted]