I've been reading some Medieval history and reflecting upon (comparatively) how few children in American primary school know about the history of the Middle Ages, and I was wondering to what extent a Medieval priest, a noble, a knight, [anyone who went to a university during the time period], and a peasant (all respectively) would know of Greek and Roman history, such as the Persian War, the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Gallic Wars, etc. I'm also up for explanations of the class system of Medieval life. Thank you to anyone who responds.

On 22 December 1944 the 101st Airborne were surrounded by the Germans during their Winter counter-attack, the Battle of the Bulge. I read on Wikipedia that General Anthony McAuliffe read the German commander's ultimatum asking the US to surrender to avoid annihilation, scrunched the paper up and replied "Nuts!".

At the time, did General McAuliffe know that Patton would be on his way to reach the troops to free them from the Germans? Or was this more of a "we will never surrender" statement from the general?

Follow-on question: did the refusal of the US troops to surrender have an effect on the Germans' morale?

During boot camp our history was beaten into us regularly. Tun Tavern, 1775, Shores of Tripoli and all, but there was never anything about what the Corps was doing during the Civil War and then just sort of picks up afterwards. In doing some light research, I couldn't really find anything either. So what were the Marines doing during the Civil War?

[deleted]

With the acceptance of queer sex in these societies, I don't really see how that would be going on. Do we know? Did they use olive oil, spit, what? Or are there no sources on the matter? Thanks in advance.

I suppose I'm focusing on the U.K. specifically. We've all heard how the junior officers had no idea what they were doing, sending their men over the trenches for no logical reason, and the mid/high ranking officers were removed from the action and tried to wage a Napoleonic war strategically.

Edit: I'm not saying/implying that the majority of officers in WWII were incompetent. They obviously learned their lessons well during the inter-war period. I'm more interested if people in general were like "hey, during the last war, all these elites didn't exactly do so hot. Are they better prepared now?"

[deleted]

I just learned about the Treaty of Trianon today, and the way the borders were drawn up raised some questions for me.

While Sykes-Picot was a demarcation of spheres of influence without regard to historical ethnic populations, and Trianon's main goal was the dismemberment of Hungary, it seems at first glance that effects would be similar - the splitting of ethnic populations by the Western powers with little care for where the borders landed.

Were there any effects from Trianon's disregard of Hungarian majorities included in the new/expanded states in Eastern Europe similar to the division of the Kurds when partitioning the Ottoman Empire?

From what I have read I believed that the Scottish highlands were very culturally different to the lowlands. In fact, they were descended from different tribes. The highlanders being descended from the Picts and the Gaels, which produced the "Scots", and the lowlanders being a mixture of many peoples including the germanic tribes that conquered England and even the Romans. They even have a different language: Scottish Gaelic is celtic language native to the highlands and the "Scottish language" is a Germanic language native to the lowlands. As such, the lowlanders did not have a clan system and looked down on it. If I understand this correctly, why then do I sometimes find references to "lowland clans" such as the Douglas or Campbell clan. Is it because both regions had the clan system but the lowlanders abandoned it after the middle ages, whereas the highlanders used it until the highland clearances? Was a lowland clan simply a family?

As the titles said, to my understanding it took significant socio-economic status to afford a war horse in Europe. Athens had a social class after Solon, the hippeis, who processed considerable wealth. Romans similarly had the equestrian class, second to the patricians holding a similar socio-economic status, very similar to medieval knights who also performed a similar role, so much so that some of the literature I've read refer to the Roman equites as knights. Was this out of scarcity or the expense to raise a healthy horse, and if so, what enabled the other parties to field significant amount of cavalry? Is horses just more common in the East?

[deleted]

I've often heard it said that the early Christian church intentionally co-opted or twisted existing pagan holidays to fit a Biblical narrative and aid in converting people. The most common claim I've heard is that Easter was some kind of spring fertility rite until the Christians came along and made it all about the resurrection of Jesus. Was this actually a deliberate tactic on the part of early church leaders? Or was it more the process of syncretism? Or something else?

The thought started when I was thinking about 'The Sabbath' being Saturday/Sunday and that the days of the week aren't exactly tied to anything other than their historical context... Looking back in history do we have an uninterrupted view from when a seven day week started until now to say that today is definitely a Sunday, or is it possible that we gained/lost some days somewhere and that today should actually be a Wednesday or a Friday if we had been keeping better track... Would things like Leap Days or the restructuring of the calendar have any effect on it either?

So at school a couple of days ago, my friend's friend introduced herself to me and she was talking to me about how she's taking a few religious studies classes including "History of Satan" and "Comparative Myths" classes. She told me how her teacher knows a whole bunch of languages and has studied many of the religions of the world. She also said however that Jesus isn't the whole "loving, peaceful" man that were lead to believe, in fact, he was a thief, a drunk, a pervert and a violent man. She also has said the same of Muhammad but that's a different question. Anyway given this context, do Historians see Jesus as a peaceful man, or violent person?

Likewise, why didn't one supplant the other eventually? Was it just another case of Cold War stubbornness?

Say, I tear my ACL in some friendly banter. Or break an arm or leg.

What are the consequences? Do I stay behind in a small village which happens to be nearby? Am I sent back?

And more importantly, what about long-term consequences. I can no longer be legionair. How can I sustain my family?

Where* damn it

Sorry if the title is a little jumbled, I was trying to think of the best way to say the question. Thanks!