Was it nice/decent in the "Ignorance is Bliss" sense, or was it still an abysmal setting for all?

[deleted]

I'm planning to describe muslim-like city in my medieval fantasy fiction story. Due to lack of english sources in the Internet I'm begging for your help.

What interests me the most is the medieval muslim city society. How did it divide? Who ruled it? What were the social classes? I'm interested in everything, any bit of information would be useful. I'm also interested in articles and other freely-available web sources.

I would also like to know how the English institutions either built up on existing native Zimbabwean institutions or changed them to better suit their colonial needs.

A big reason Hindenburg burned up so quickly when it caught fire was because it was filled with hydrogen, a really reactive gas. Why didn't the German's use Helium over Hydrogen in order to improve safety?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Why did the western Allies wait for a German offensive, rather than forcing Germany to fight on two fronts?

My family history has been traced back to Guldental Germany in the district of Bad Kreuznach. (The oldest written example of my surname was found there on a tombstone. I can't right now remember when it was dated but it was quite old.)

I'm trying to understand what my ancestors would have believed in before converting to Christianity. When I try to find examples of gods and deities from what is now Germany I find mostly examples of Norse gods (Odin, Thor, etc...) called by different names like "Woden."

Is it likely that these same gods were revered here as well or is it just that Norse mythology is much better understood and known causing my searches to skew that way?

Thank you for any help you can offer.

I really have five questions. What was an average day like for a soldier in the trenches? What was life like during heavy fighting, especially during battles that lasted months like Verdun? What was a typical day for a soldier who wasn't on the front lines like in a support capacity or manning the artillery? How often did soldiers get leave and where did they usually spend their off hours? Finally, what was it like going to and from the trenches, did they have staging areas before going into the trenches, and how far back were the entrances to the trench system from the front trenches?

Thank you all for your time.

And if not, did the Crusades experience somehow inadvertently prepare the Europeans to colonize the New World anyway?

For example, as I understand it, holy orders may have led to the development of modern banking by promising to honor monetary debts written from across the Mediterranean by their fellow countrymen. That system may have made it easier for colonists to travel across the Atlantic because they knew that they would have something to get them started in the New World.

Were there any intellectuals or heads of state or scholars during the Colonial Era studying the Crusades Era in order to avoid the pratfalls of running overseas territory? Did they study the Crusades to try to discover perhaps forgotten techniques for managing hostile lands and peoples?

I hope the rather terse question in the title isn't too clumsy that it drives people away. But if I need to be more discrete, please let me know and I'll be happy to put more constraints on my question if that helps to make it more answerable.

And thanks so much in advance for taking a shot at my question!

The northern route through southern Russia to Hungary is pretty obvious: it’s a continuous band of steppes that would appeal to pastoralists. But south of the Caspian, I don’t see the overwhelming appeal of following the mountains to Anatolia as opposed to following the Fertile Crescent into Egypt (as the Mongols attempted), or following the Persian Gulf into southern Arabia.

I've read some things about how in the past century of warfare (which I do realize the political landscape was far different than it was in Roman times) the reason a lot of the wars ended besides the fact that factions lost was because it cost too much to maintain that territory.

Now I may be a somewhat ignorant on this subject but from what I know of the Romans is that they were conquering machines. I mean they pretty much had all of Europe and the horn of Africa under their control, even expanding to the Island of Great Britain. What was it about their military, economy, and politics that were so different from today that they were able to do what few have been able to for as long as they have?

In 1839, the UK & Belgium signed the "Treaty of London" one of the points discussed in this treaty is that the UK would be there to defend Belgium in the event of war. In 1914/15 Germany instigated the "Schlieffen Plan" whereby it would go through Belgium to get to France & attack it. Going through Belgium put the "scrap of paper" into place thus entering Britain into WW1.

However during the 75 years between the treaty being signed & it been acted upon many developments & opinions had taken hold in Europe; Queen Victoria had been & gone from the throne, the first stage of the Industrial Revolution (1760's - 1840's) was shifting into it's second stage (1870's -1910's) & the "scramble for africa" was in full swing.

Belgium's colonial atrocities in the Congo Free state are well-known under the leadership of Leopold II & the UK has a fair few atrocities of it's own (the Boer war, Boxer Rebellion, 1857 Indian mutiny etc) did these atrocities ever compromise the 1839 agreement?

How did each country's society react to the other's atrocities?

I wonder since the war began 20 years after the end of WW1 there can't have been too many veteranes left of WW1 fighting in the beginning of WW2. This begs the question how many German (because France and the UK fought in other wars since WW1) soldiers had seen combat before the war?

Like, did Wendel Wilkie mention it in his campaign at all? He was breaking a 150-year precedent. Was he too popular for it to matter?