William the Conqueror ended up in a strange position as both King of England in his own right and vassal to the French king as Duke of Normandy. This convoluted situation would only become more confusing over the years, and at one point the influence of Eleanor of Aquitaine made the nascent Angevin Empire comprise of England, Normandy, and Aquitaine, with some claims over Wales and the Pays D'Oc. One would think it the primary goal of any ruler to hold on to these rich possessions.

My question is, why didn't the monarchs make a more concerted effort to hold on to these lands? By all accounts France was richer and better developed than England, and the royal family made a show of practicing French culture. Surely they could have made a closer integration with these French vassals such that they would have some level of loyalty.

Obviously there's the hundred (114?) Years War in this period, but from what I've read that largely composed of invasion forces attacking the French king in Paris rather than making alliances with local Normand or Aquitainian lords in exchange for fealty. How did a West Francian state which at one point comprised only the central lands manage to bring all of France back under their rule?

As a Brit I've only ever heard about the success stories, Crècy, Agincourt, Eleanor - did the French regain their state through marvellous feats I've never been told? Or was a cultural divide between the growing sense of 'English' and their vassals too great to surpass?

Did they march around with some sort of protected fire that had to be quickly distributed? Or, did individual soldiers have a way to quickly get fires going to light their weapons?

After suffering such a high rate of casualties in 1812 how was it possible to rebuild in such a short space of time and deploy quite a substantial number of troops for the German campaign in 1813?

I understand that the army deployed in 1813 did not match up in terms of size, but any insights into the logistics involved in reconstituting the Grande Armée would be much appreciated.

As my own academic history interests have developed increasingly in the direction of history of science and medicine, I have been wondering about this. I am just about finished with my undergraduate degree in history, and have also completed the credit-equivalent of minors in both biology and chemistry (along with 3 courses in physics) so I have some grounding in the sciences. For history of science PhD programs, (PhD programs which I am fully aware would almost never be recommended by this sub- the job market sucks, is non-existent, I know, I know...) is a more extensive academic grounding in the sciences expected, or is this a decent start? My history department doesn't have any faculty specialized in the history of science, so I haven't been able to get any great advice from my them as of yet.

I'm interested in such issue: is there any reason for words Slavs and Slaves so similar? I've heard that Genua and crimean nomads used to sell slavic slaves for ottomans and west region and they worked on galleys.

Apologies if this isn't a proper place to ask-I figured if anyone would know, it would be you guys.

I know the years he served, his name, and his unit. For the first time since i've known him, my Grandfather opened up about his experiences in Vietnam over thanksgiving. He said that of all the things he wanted to forget over there, the one thing he wanted to remember was his friendship with his buddy. I'd like to track down his buddy, and set up a reunion if possible.

I have always found it curious that merchants would presumably have some form of guard to, at the least, ensure their personal well-being. Its a common fantasy staple for the caravan to have a rough and tumble assortment of guardsmen, but this has always appeared to be one of those medieval tropes that has more roots in the American west than it does in actual history.

But the problem is, those guards would of course presumably have some sort of homeland despite a career that would see them traveling an exceptional amount. While I have read about caravans having guardsmen in the form of knights and such traveling to a common destination, I haven't ever seen anybody talk about the more 'common' guard that may or may not have existed.

So how in an age where the average serf was not expected to leave their land (though understanding that this is a massive overgeneralization), do we have any knowledge of who exactly would be the type of person to guard a caravan as a sort of career? I am specifically trying to aim at the medieval era before the later period when more organized troops and expectations of protections from various realms may have provided such service, but am open to hearing about them since I presume that any sources on anything earlier would be scarce at best.

Can Hadith be considered credible when it comes to accurately illustrating the life of Muhammad?

Are stories of Muhammad in Hadith true?

I'm leading a module next Semester on Theories of Social Change and have taken a bit of an interest in recent years in Strauss-Howes' Generational Theory. Although significant global events (or at least, events with a global impact) are included within the original conception of the theory, I'm curious as to whether there have been any attempts to apply it to British history? I'd be particularly interested in an application that focuses on post-1900 history.

Many thanks in advance for any thoughts, ideas, signposts, etc.

I would preferably wish for the reactions of the United Kingdom and Russia, due to both having a vested interest in the affairs of Central Asia.

Thank you in advance!

If you can give any examples of men who refused to fight duels, that would be great.

Simple as that. I wonder if the average german soldier knew anything about the holocaust during world war 2?

Specifically as pets, like dogs. There are obviously examples of bears who were quite close with their humans like Wojtek, but they weren’t really domesticated in the same way a German Shepherd is.

So... any examples of serious attempts to domesticate them?

i’m writing a book about a girl pirate whose father was the captain of her ship before her. he dies off-page, and i want her to be the captain of the ship. how did that work, specifically with pirates? was it a “vice president to president” sort of transition? is it something the captain hd to declare in something like a will?

he didn’t go down with the ship either, she is commanding the same ship. he just so happened to die on land.

Hello.

I want to learn more about the Ottoman police force and the way it was operating in the second half of the 19th century. As a Bulgarian, I am especially interested about the police in Bulgaria before the Liberation in 1878. So, say around 1850-1870.

Some specific questions:- what crimes/cases were investigated? Obviously any revolutionary/anti-Ottoman activism would be investigated and punished, but I am asking more about things like murder, theft, rape and missing persons. Let's say that I live in a Bulgarian village around 1850, what should I do if:- someone from my family is killed by an unkown perpetrator?- someone from my family is raped by an unkown perpetrator?- something I own (money, tools, animals, food etc.) is stolen?- someone I know suddenly disappears?Is there an analog of today's police stations - a place that I need to visit in the aforementioned cases, and explain what is the problem? What is the procedure? Is my case logged somewhere? Is there an investigator/detective, assigned to my case, who then starts to question/interrogate suspects and other people, check clues and documents and so on? In short, how would an episode of CSI: Ottoman Empire pan out? :)

Also, were there any patrol officers or the policemen were just appearing when called?

Sorry for my probably ignorant questions, I understand that my view on police (and, consequently, my questions) is too 21st century-centric and things were done differently back then. But I hope that you will help me understand. Thanks in advance!

Argentina was continuously in some kind of economic crisis for the most of the 20th century.
Even not covering recent period because of the 20 year rule in this sub.

I'm more surprised it's still as well off as it is. How fabulously wealthy was it in the early 1900s that a century of decline still makes it ok?