Reading wikipedia apparently the name of the rank of a general, as in 'general Patton', comes from the medieval or early modern 'captain general', as in a captain (Not in the modern sense, I guess? Like not 'someone above a Lt. but below a Colonel' but 'a high military rank'?) with more stuff to do.

I'm curious, how did we drop the captain bit?

And how does it tie in with other [something] generals? Like Lt./Maj. or even Col. general?

Despite being older than the Catholic Church and having been endorsed by eastern empires, I hadn't seen any Orthodox knightly orders. I know that this may be due to the fact that the Catholic Church was more centralised than it's eastern counterpart, and that in the East most religious matters that required military intervention were handled by the state. Even so, there have been catholic orders that operated in this area, with the support of the locals, so it would be hard to say that the climate wasn't the right one for them, especially with the proximity. Even the Order of the Holy Sepulchre was catholic, despite operating on the lands of the former Eastern Roman Empire.

Obviously there was a big difference between the amounts of food. But what else was different between the two? I'm talking like ceremonies before dining, or the amount of people dining at the same time in the same room, the reason of dining, etc.

Given the level of decentralization, it seems unlikely that there were true seminaries, so what was the system?

I don't know the exact years when it happened but it is probably around 1920, when he came to the Taurus Mountains.

Here is what I do know:

• He said he was originally from near Van, Turkey. He was a devout Sunni Muslim who spoke in a peasant dialect of Turkish common among the Yoruks (Nomads) of Turkey. He was tall, had light brown hair, and green eyes. He was very kind and had a sharp mind, even though not being able to read or write.

• He came to the Taurus mountains with only clothes on his back, his siblings, and first wife. His sister died along the trek, and his first wife and child died during childbirth. His other sibling, his brother, had survived but I heard nothing about him. Eventually, my Great-Grandfather was able to get a job in a small village. After the death of his first wife he remarried to the mayor's daughter, (my Great-Grandmother) and he took over as mayor of that village before his death. He married my great-grandmother when he was around 16 years old, and she was only 13.

• Whenever asked about why he left Van, he spoke very little about it. My Great-Aunt always asked him about it, but even after many years of being prodded about it, he still wouldn't tell why. He would tell my aunt: "I cannot. If you truly knew what happened, you would become very bitter and you will harbor hate for what happened forever, and it is best if you don't know." That is all that we (the family) know from his account.

• This is what the family speculates: they think there was a blood feud between my Great-Grandfather's family and another. They think he ran across the Asia Minor with his sister, brother, and wife, because the blood feud loomed over their heads. They ran far and fast as they could, and tried to create a new life away from worrying about dying.

• During the time period, there was the Armenian Genocide. Van was overtaken by both Turks and Armenians, and it was a mess according to some reading on the internet. It is more likely he saw the carnage of the conflict, but as for why he would run all the way to the southwest of Turkey instead of being elsewhere, leaves much to be desired.

When looking into the Reformation for a fictional work that I am currently creating with some other people I found it rather difficult to not make reforming sound like the obvious right choice.

We want to tell the story of the Reformation in this fictional setting and show both sides of the debate, but when researching this I personally thought that the 95 Theses by Luther and the 12 Articles from the German Peasants' War sounded quite reasonable as far as religion goes and have trouble finding reasons for people to stay Catholic.

We don't want to paint Catholicism as a corrupt and horrible religion but rather in such a way as people would have looked at it at the time.

Trying to look up things like "arguments against the protestant reformation" on google resulted in "Protestant Errors" which is a website describing everything wrong with Protestantism in a modern light (and a very confusing way of wording things combined with an unhelpful layout)

I would like to know arguments against reforming, was it faith and trust in their Catholic priest? Was it the fact that Catholic Churches ran most social services like Orphanages, alms for the poor and what little education was available? A combination of these things? or are there more reasons I have missed/overlooked?

I don't mean to start a religious debate between different Christians I am just trying to figure out why people would choose to reform or stay Catholic during the reformation, which arguments did they weigh to make their decision.

Talking about blacksmiths, tailors, stuff like that.

Were there often old "apprentices" that were just never good enough to move forward?

When someone become a "master" (not sure how that happens), is it assumed that they go and buy a new shop somewhere or were they likely to stay on and work for their old boss. Were there often large firms with many masters working under a single employer?

If there was a person who was born with amazing natural skills in a career that they were able to secure an apprenticeship in, would it be likely that they would end up successful and renown for their craft?

I am doing some research on the establishment of "Kimilsungism" and its links to the Soviet Union. Finding the connections has been very easy but a question that I can not seem to find the answer to is why Stalin removed his troops. This action is completely contrary to what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe when developing communist countries. Any insight would be appreciated, at this point it is more for my own curiosity than the paper.

David Simon was on the WTF podcast and claimed that the decommissioning of military bands after the Spanish American War was a factor in the creation of Jazz, because surplus military instruments were dumped in New Orleans. The man did create The Wire, but is this true or too good to be true? If it's too good to be true, just anecdotally it seems like instruments were more accessible than they are to day. Is there any explanation for that?

Middle Ages is a broad term, so let's say I have my existential crisis after Charlemagne but before Agincourt. Still broad, but a bit less so.

So, I searched for few subreddits for this topic to avoid repetition and haven't found anything. Question: out of all of these theories involving variety of different hypothetically contacting civilizations, which theories are the most scientifically plausible? Can somebody write a personal rank or 'Top 5, 10, whatever' theories that may most certainly survive after the most possibly accurate analysis of their data? Also, I would really appreciate if any of the theories can get some commentary as well, not only the rigid list.

Never really got to learn about the old west, always thought it was intriguing though so I thought it would be about time to learn.

Fire pots seem effective against both formations of infantry and during sieges but they dont seem to be widely mentioned in most battles, What gives? Was oil and pitch rare or difficult to produce?

Or any other language that was lost for a period of time for that matter?

Considering how much Pagan elements found themselves in western Christianity like Christmas and Halloween symbolism.

Don't get me wrong here, I love history but personally I don't know how it'll be used in life.