The impression I get from the medieval times in Europe is that there were a lot of small wars happening between barons and similar aristocrats in the same country regarding inheritance, land, money, etc. My question is : when and why have they stopped being a frequent occurence in history? Was it in the early modern period when states became centralized? Was in the enlightenment when, one would think, noblemen became more "noble"? Or perhaps it hadn't stopped even then?

Obviously there was much less support after the camps were discovered, but I've heard that there was much admiration, support, and such amongst conservatives, liberals, and sometimes even socialists (I think!). The question here is, why? Most I know about it is the anti-semitism and rampant militarism, so there must be some inner message or actual propaganda successes that would actually get people to support them.

Like, what was it about fascism that drew in the crowd? What did they see in its future and utopia?

I've heard recently that due to Churchill's privatisation and encouragement of competition with regards to war production, the Britain of the first World War actually produced more overall in terms of material, especially in ships, rather than in the second World War. Is this true? What good sources are there covering war production during the first and how it differed during the second?

I've read a few answers about sieges on the sub, and they're always fantastic! Something I've noted is that every answer has said that a breach of the walls meant sure defeat, but also mention the besieged party preparing secondary defensive positions inside the walls to continue the defense. Did these ever work?

In WWII, MacArthur was completely unprepared after Pearl Harbor. After being notified of the attack, he did nothing. After being ordered by Marshall to execute plan Rainbow Five, he ignored the order. He left aircraft arrayed poorly despite being at war and the Japanese destroyed the Far East Air Force on the ground. He failed in the Philippines and abandoned soldiers there and then fought a wasteful campaign to retake the Philippines later that had no military benefit, but was just for his ego.

After the war, he made the decision to leave Korea out of the protection zone leading to the Korean War and then, his conduct in the war was nearly criminally bad.

Why do people think he was so great?

I have been curious about the rise and fall in labor unions in the US as a part of the evolving changes in wages and staffing in the US. I've searched the archives and found plenty of information on why labor union membership decreased. My question is how did labor union membership in the US begin to increase to levels seen in the 50s and 60s and were there any similarities to the current economic and political climate?

I am working on my family genealogy and I'm struggling to understand my ancestor's role in the Civil War. Most of my family were Privates, but one of my favorite people to study was appointed 1st Sergeant of Company K of the 30th Kentucky Mounted Regiment. This company was involved at Saltville in both battles. What exactly got someone promoted/appointed to this position from Private and what was the primary job of the 1st Sergeant during the American Civil War?

*side note, another one of my ancestors was captured and rescued by his own men in the same 30th-K. Would this 1st Sergeant have been part of that rescue group?

I read an article on “Le Monde” saying around 45% of all comics sold in France are manga, making them the second largest consumer after Japan. According to demographics there doesn’t seem to be a large Japanese population in France nor a large French population in Japan. I was wondering if there was a historical explanation for this beyond French people just really liking manga.

I understand the meaning of 'Motherland' for Russia and communists, but 'Fatherland'?

Hitler hated his father, and his father hated Adolf, so why did Hitler choose the term of 'Fatherland' for nazi and Germany?

Hello and thanks for reading, anyone know of any good detailed books/diagrams/plans/photos about Medieval Ship/Sailing mechanics and features? (so for Cogs, Longships, Galleys, Junks?). I would like to make some accurate models with working mechanical features and rules for a war game.

I want to know EVERYTHING about Medieval ship mechanics and functions such as: how the rigging worked in detail, how masts were raised and lowered, how many people were required to operate the different functions, how fast the ships were compared to others of different size/type, sizing of sails, etc.

I appreciate any help in this direction and thank you!

Prior to the destruction of Ungarit by an unknown enemy, possibly the Sea Peoples mentioned by Egypt, King Ammurapi sends the following letter to Cyprus. It is a letter that raises some questions to me, someone who only recently has started examining Ugarit.

My father, behold, the enemy's ships came (here); my cities(?) were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots(?) are in the Land of Hatti, and all my ships are in the Land of Lukka? ... Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us

First the use of my father, I assume is merely an honorific of the time?

Secondly, Ammurapi his troops are in Hatti and his ships in Luka. I assume this is on behest of the Hitties themselves. I know Ammurapi had a Hittite ex-wife, but was Ugarit obliged as a vassal or tributary to defend the Hittites or was this just generous aid at the wrong time?

The response is also puzzling:

As for the matter concerning those enemies: (it was) the people from your country (and) your own ships (who) did this! And (it was) the people from your country (who) committed these transgression(s)...I am writing to inform you and protect you. Be aware!

To me that would suggest social unrest collapsing Ugarit, but how confident are historians in Cyprus's attribution? Did Ugarit how any smaller polities that could have been in revolt?

Ok, I have a completely pointless question that I can't seem to find the answer to.

I'm creating a model (out of Legos) of British Troops from the Revolutionary War. They each have a little gun. My question is, does it matter which side of their body they hold it on? Left or Right?

Was this something dictated by regulations? Or was it just up to each soldier depending on which hand they were dominant in?

I'm just trying to be accurate when setting them up. And yes, I realize no one will ever notice this detail, but for some reason I feel compelled to get it right.

And in case it gives anyone motivation, it is a Christmas present for my wife. I'm giving her a fully armed battalion to remind her of my love.

it seems that despite the church and early Christians burning away many important ancient texts they seemed to have missed the Homeric texts. They didn't burned the works of Plato and Aristotle because they thought that these philosophers managed to "predict" the monotheistic god but why keep the ancient texts about your old pagan enemies ?

Hi, I recently finished Antony Beevor's excellent "The Fall Of Berlin". In his book he often mentions the Nordland division. An SS volunteer unit composed of Scandinavians and Dutch known for being fiercely ideological compared to other SS units.

My question is what happened to it's members after the war. I'm assuming a lot died in battle or were taken captive. But were there any writings about what happened to the ones who did manage to go back home after the war. Could they just freely admit to being former SS members in post war Scandinavia?

Thanks.

I mean, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know my Bible, especially compared to a historian. But I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a Bible passage that basically went, "Yeah, there's going to be this guy called Muhammad, he's going to come from this place called Mecca/Makkah, y'all should listen to him."

So, what specific passages would early Muslim theologians have used as evidence of a prophecy foretelling the rise of Muhammad's prophethood?

For anyone curious, this came from Hoyland's 'Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions'.

According to several sources, eight million people died in the mines of Potosi over three centuries. For example, according to p. 79 in Robert Marks' The Origins of the Modern World (which is rather one-sided), the town of Potosi had 150k inhabitants in 1570, 7 in 10 workers died in the mines with a total of 8 million deaths over three centuries.

When I follow the references from Marks, through Charles Mann's 1493, I've found the claim in Eduardo Galeano's Open Veins of Latin America (1971/1997), p. 32, 39, but he doesn't explain how he arrives at the number.

If the numbers are true, there must have been as many workers in the Potosi mines as there were slaves shipped across the Atlantic during the same period. In fact, if there were 150k inhabitants in Potosi, and we assume that all were workers, the entire population must have been replaced every five years for three hundred years. If some of the inhabitants weren't workers (likely), the work force would need replacing more or less every second or third year. Even more when you add in deaths not directly attributable to the mining or people just leaving the town. That seems like a lot, especially compared with European mines during the same period. Falu koppargruva had something like 1000 workers, but "only" 5-20 deaths per year.

Now, needless to say, the Potosi mines were death machines, with absolutely horrific conditions. I'm just confused at the claims of scale. What am I missing?