Have you seen portraits of queen of England(for example queen Anne) , they all used to have deep necklines in gowns but according to modern or 1900 standards , showing legs is much more acceptable than deep necklines(example queen Elizabeth). As a young girl, I am just intrigued.

I know this may be a stupid question but every time I look at a map their is a dashed line between Morocco. Why is this? Is the territory disputed or what?

I’ve inherited some old pictures of my great-grandfather in uniform, as well as his Purple Heart. We’ve framed the pictures and awards. But I’d like the internet’s help to learn more about him. The photos may be obvious but I’m a total civilian. I figured this subreddit would be a good place for something like that, or at least some direction. Any help would be appreciated!

I asked this a few years ago with no answers -- I'm still curious about it and I figure enough time has passed that someone might have some insight, as this is not something that's been gone into in the books I've read on the subject/time period.

I was reading one of Alison Weir's books about Henry VIII and I realized that I've never quite understood that. She states that Cranmer thought (or said he thought) it was a theological matter rather than a matter of canon law - how did they differ at the time? I would think that theology and canon law would both fall under the aegis of the pope, but based on what I've read that wasn't necessarily the case. Or was it, and was Cranmer just shooting for the moon in terms of possible solutions?

Pretty much as the title asks as I've heard it posited that a reason for Henry II's invasion was to reign in his erstwhile vassal that he feared would carve out his own kingdom in Ireland and he had disagreements with. How true is such?

Did most people in medieval Europe actually attend church once a week (or more)?

I know the common answer is "yes", but I'm having trouble figuring out how it would've been possible for people living in rural areas, which in many cases would have been small farming hamlets located pretty far from any kind of town center capable of supporting a church. It seems like it would be especially problematic if the people didn't own a horse.

Were there simply a lot more churches back then, or is this a case of history being remembered from the perspective of people living in towns versus peasants?

I know "medieval Europe" is an impossibly broad category, but if you happen to be able to answer this question, please feel free to choose from any place and time you're familiar with even if it's not necessarily representative.

I heard on the Radio War Need podcast that banning specific trades [edit: i.e., professions] was a common tactic used within colonies to keep the colony dependent on the colonizing country and thus discourage independence.

How common was this?

How did it differ between colonial powers, and between colonies of a single nation?

What examples are there of the most absurd bans?

What penalties were used to enforce such bans?

How big of an impediment did these [b]ans create in newly independent nations?

Where there already locks and keys? Or were chains used for it? How did you stop thieves from intruding in your home?

As in, why did this happen in 1982? Was there a particular public push for decades (beforehand) for this kind of recognition? Did the public views on the Roma and Sinti genocide finally caught with the scholarship?

Quote from Al Jazeera in question.

In 1982, Germany officially recognised the genocide of the Roma and Sinti, a related people who live mostly in German-speaking areas of Central Europe

I think that the myth of everyone in medieval armies being conscripted against their will is mostly a stereotype, but i cant be sure. From what i read about the war of the roses, it seems like they were able to raise armies pretty fast, which i think couldnt be acompished without having a percentage of all men ready, with their own weapons and gear. Still what do you know?

Specifically, were there substantial gaps in accuracy, range, firing speed, reliability between models? If there were differences, was any of it because of doctrinal differences?

Or were they unilateral victims of mediterranean piracy sans Hospitallers?

I was reading about the Polish retreat into Romania for school assignment and I can't for the life of me find out how exactly the Polish military got from Romania all the way to France. I've been searching about this to no avail, if anyone knows about this, your knowledge would be greatly appreciated!

Gibbon's six volume set is a collection of history books that I often hear a lot about. I only have a general understanding of Roman History and thought that with Christmas approaching the collection may make a very nice present for myself.

However, it is my understanding that the books were written over two hundred years ago. Would what Gibbon's wrote in the book still be considered reputable or has the general understanding of Roman history changed since the time in which he was writing? I'd hate to read the books only to learn that I'd been studying outdated or inaccurate information.

I have been getting interested in Asian history and I am planning on studying abroad in a few years, and I want to learn more about the various cultures and history.

Can anyone recommend a good history of Paraguay? I'm particularly interested in the early period after independence and the reign of Francia, but I'm curious about later periods as well. A slightly more niche issue I'd like to know about is Paraguayan language policy, and what exactly lead Guaraní (an indigenous language) to the relatively dominant position it holds today.

As we know Bosnia today, it developed its distinct identity via its unique Muslim population. Before the country began converting to Islam, did it have a unique identity? Or did the population just consider themselves ethnically Serb or Croatian depending on their religion (Orthodox/Catholic)? Obviously the medieval kingdoms which arose in Bosnia identified nationally as Bosnians, but did they have an ethnic identity, and if so, what was it?

There is a bit of a military history trope that Mosquitos offered an unparalleled opportunity to deliver bombs at an efficiency rate unequalled by heavy bombers. Something along the lines of half of the bombs at a quarter of the cost, one fifth of the crew and ten times the survival rate.

This is all well and good and alluring to the 'phnah phnah hindsight' approach. But what is the historiocal opinion to such a venture? What are the downsides to such ideas?

Things that come to my mind.. Presumably minds, plans and production lines are not shifted over night. What about the supply of wood. Wood is bulky to transport and probably comes from Scandinavia which might be in shorter supply than metal?

What in practice was stopping a wooden wonder storm descending on Germany?