For instance, Clovis I divided his realm among his four sons, who all became independent. Charles Martell divided his realm among his two sons. The realm of Louis the Pious was also divided into three parts in the Treaty of Prüm/Verdun, one of which would become the kingdom of France.

Now my question: If a vassal of one of these kings had holdings in, say, East Francia and Lotharingia, would he give up part of his holdings (if yes, would he be compensated in any way?), or would he owe fealty to multiple kings?

Were there different solutions between peaceful inheritances (Like after Charles Martell's death) and less peaceful divisions (like the Treaty of Prüm)?

Crucifixion in media is usually depicted done with nails through the wrist and feet, but I understand it was also done with ropes alone. Which would be the usual method for Rome around the late Republic?

England & France have not always been besties. We all know it. However, I was always curious what changed in the late 1800s/early 1900s where over hundreds of years of prior conflict became a strong alliance in 2 world wars, as well as in founding the EU, being part of NATO/UN, etc. Point is, I've recently heard in a lecture that Germany was responsible for these two becoming allies in the first place. My teacher told us that Germany's naval power threatened British supremacy in the seas, and France was a surefire ally to any anti-German nation after the Franco-Prussian War, so the two teamed up. However, is there more to this? Did England not see France as a threat at all? Was France not jealous of British dominance abroad, or did they see an alliance with such a powerful country as helpful in maintaining their colonies in North Africa, for example? Did any other European countries (Italy, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, & Russia come to mind, for their various roles in WWI) play into this forming of an alliance? Because as a French-American living in the States, it seems to me like the Modern Era relationship between the French & British is a real special one overall.

I am assuming the industrial revolution had a large impact on the American frontier, but I'm not sure how large.

So I was reading another post that mentioned the treaty of Sevré and the break up of the Ottoman Empire. Why was Germany not divided up like the other two? Since they were the youngest of the central powers, at 48 at Versailles, wouldn't it have been easier for the entente to dismantle them?

Haiti is poorer than any other country in the Americas, but I don't know enough about its history to see what makes it unique among its neighbors. The Dominican Republic, Cuba, Jamaica and the Bahamas are all much stronger economically.

Related questions:

• Was there something unique about French colonial administration in the region which made the area poorer? The other four countries in the region I compared it to were all English or Spanish colonies.

• Jamaica and the Bahamas have similar histories to Haiti--they are primarily populated by the descendants of African slaves brought to the islands by European colonizers. But unlike Haiti, those countries earned their independence peacefully, and much later than Haiti. Did Haiti's position as a nation born of a successful slave revolt lead to hostile international relations--did slave holding countries like the US attempt to undermine Haiti?

The Eiffel tower has represented Paris in countless contexts, but what was used before 1889? Was it Notre Dame?

I am trying to work out the validity of some oft repeated family history. It's been claimed that my grandfather, who served in WWII, witnessed the bombing of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I was just wondering if there was any evidence any allied troops, particularly Australians, were in the area at the time.

Multiple theories have tried to explain the origin of the fraternity. Most center around an aristocratic adoption of the language surrounding stone-working guilds as a method of allegorical teaching. More fanciful theories posit the origin of the organization in the Knights Templar. What is the truth to the best of the knowledge of the historians here?

I have recently realized while I know a lot about Eisenhower's military history I've read very little regarding his presidency. I welcome any and all suggestions, thanks everyone!

Just a question after reflecting on the origins of Islam's name that I wasn't really sure where "Christianity" as a term comes from nor if it has always been called that.

I was watching Amadeus the other night and I was wondering how accurate that movie is contrast, to real life? Was that really Mozart's personality? Was he really financially unstable due to hitting on young girls at that time?

They didn't have ear protection as far as I know, and as we all know, guns are pretty damn loud. How is it that everyone didn't lose their hearing?

I'm interested in doing some casual reading/research into German military doctrine during the 2nd World War. I was wondering if anyone knew of any free, english translated documents available online to use as a jumping off point?