I made a search on other subreddits dedicated to religion, but could not find a answer that satisfied me. As lutheranism generally advocated a christianity based on the Bibel, and since the Anointing of the Sick is present in the Bible, I was wondering which argument Luther, or any other lutheran theologian for that matter, used the exclude it as a sacrament from lutheranism?

and other small countries

Lets say for example Urnfield culture central Europe. Did each hillfort constitute its own ''nation" or were they a part of a larger union of settlements? And when it came to war, was it everyone for themselves or for example if one settlement is attacked, could it expect to get help from others because of their shared family, cultural, linguistic etc. ties?

I'm looking to become a Historian (Right now I'm just a 19 year old idiot). I have a range of topics that interest me but have no idea on what kind of conclusion I should come to for it. t I hope to gauge an idea of what I should do with a degree (Obviously going to pursue a graduate degree after a Bachelors). I hope I don't sound too naive when it comes to research and studying.

[deleted]

This question popped into my head when I was watching Kingdom of Heaven, where the (historically inaccurate) protagonist's father just decides to have him inherit, even though it seems it should've gone to his nephew.

Even if it was so decreed, how likely would it be followed once the lord has died?

I am assuming if it came to this the lord would have no legitimate son, though if a case exist in which a lord rather his bastard son inherit over his legitimate one, please let me know too.

I'd also like to know if any of the families have kept the land holdings that were established in the early days of the colony.

If you don't have a wider answer but can talk about a single Mayflower lineage or one particular tract of land, I'd like to hear it.

I wanted to know how common was it for an american born to go and join the german army due to the nationality of his parents or his lineage?

Are there stories of any of them making it back to the USA after the war?

I'm curious because I read a book about the Crusades by Thomas Asbridge a few months ago and I'm reading Don Quixote right now, they've both mentioned lint being used in someway to treat wounds.

How did they use lint to treat wounds? As some form of bandage? Also, how did they collect lint for this purpose? I can't imagine they had lint catchers back then.

Thanks in advance for any info.

[deleted]

Around 1000, English monk Aelfric of Eynsham articulated the division of his world into three orders: those who work, those who pray, those who fight. By 1300, the rise of cities across Europe had arguably added a fourth class: those who sell.

This era is often called the Autumn or the Harvest of the Middle Ages: the acceleration and concretization of trends long simmering. Plagues were deadlier, banks were richer, hats were bigger, shoes were pointier, wars had new weapons, art was bloodier, books were mass produced for the first time in history, Jews and Muslims were seen to pose a more insidious threat to Christendom, knights' armor shone more, and people seized with the fire of religious devotion could choose a life of quiet piety or flashy religious spectacle or everything in between.

Game of Thrones and its fantasy cousins take many of their cues from this era. But the reality of later medieval society can be quite different from the of the fictional worlds that it helped inspire. When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. But when you have questions about the age of thrones as it actually was, Ask Us Anything.

Your, um, round table:

• /u/WARitter - Weapons, the development of plate armour, the armour industry
• /u/Valkine - Bows, crossbows, early firearms, military history
• /u/sunagainstgold - Those who pray, those who write, those who...menstruate
• /u/mrmedievalist - Royal authority, social and economic transformations in the 14th century
• /u/MI13 - English armies, the Hundred Years War
• /u/kittydentures - Clothing, "especially underwear"
• /u/itsalrightwithme - Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, early 16th century France and Italy
• /u/gothwalk - Western European food & farming
• /u/Enrico_Dandalo - Italian history, Italian economic history, banking
• /u/AshkenazeeYankee - Jewish experiences into the 16-17th centuries

The panelists hail from both Essos and Westeros, so please keep the time zone factor in mind when awaiting answers.

Ask us anything!

[deleted]

The question is pretty self-explanatory. I'm just curious whether we know of any attempts to cross the Atlantic Ocean prior to the Columbus expedition. Or was he literally the first person we know of historically who sincerely proposed sailing across the Atlantic Ocean?

The only two instances I could find that might fit the bill are:

• Obviously Lief Erikson's attempts to sail across the North Atlantic, ultimately succeeding in reaching "Vinland" circa 1000 AD
• Vague rumors that Mansa Abu Bakr II of the Mali Empire had abdicated the throne in order to explore the Atlantic Ocean with a massive fleet in the 14th Century

I apologize if this has been asked before, I've searched around and haven't found any other threads on this topic.

EDIT: And to be clear, it seems completely obvious that any previous expeditions were not successful. I don't mean for this to come off as some sort of conspiracy theory about other groups landing in America before Columbus. Because it seems obvious that even if there were any previous attempts to cross the Atlantic, they weren't successful.

Presumably the actual terms were some sort of compromise between the views of Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and Wilson. What did each of these statesmen have to leave out, in exchange for getting higher-priority items into the treaty?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Watching the Borgias, one character goes to Opium Dens in Rome in the late 15the century. Is this accurate? Reading Schievelbusch, smoking as an act at least pertaining to tobacco only started later. Would people at that time smoke opium rather than just consume poppy by eating it?

We all know the story of Operation Michael: Germany had one last chance to win on the Western Front, but they had a short window of time to do so, and failed by a narrow margin. It's a juicy story, with all the elements for a good tragedy: the last hope, all or nothing, a race against the clock, failure at the last hurdle ("running aground in sight of the harbour", as we say in Dutch) – and all of European history turning on a single campaign.

Tonight, I want to ask about the historical reality behind the story. Specifically, I'm curious whether Operation Michael really was The Campaign That Could Have Changed Everything – or pretty much doomed from the start.

Here's Sebastian Haffner in Von Bismarck zu Hitler, taking the pessimistic view:

This time, as well, one saw in a very short time what the First World War had always shown: that the technology of the day radically limited strategic possibilities. Even a successful offensive – and this German offensive was more successful than any Allied offensive had been up to that point – could not lead to a real breakthrough, because the defender could plug the gaps, bring in reinforcements and halt the attack faster than the attacker could feed his advancing army, push it forward, and reinforce it with fresh troops.

One must always bear in mind that the First World War – at any rate in the West – was, even in this phase, an infantry war. No army could advance faster than a single soldier could march. The defender, however, had railways in his rear, which he could use to bring in reserves from other fronts. Exactly that happened in this case.

And here's Wolfgang Venohr, writing about Ludendorff in Preußische Profile:

Ludendorff attacked. The 17th Army, in the north, progressed with great difficulty (7 km in three days); the 2nd Army, in the middle, and the 18th Army, in the south, broke through with great speed (20-22 km in the same three days). And now the incomprehensible, the utterly fatal happened: When Ludendorff saw how easily his southern flank had broken through, he changed the direction of operations, the entire strategic point of the matter, by shifting emphasis to the south and ordering a rapid advance towards Compiegne.

Compiegne? That was much closer to Paris, was it not? What in God's name did he want there?

[...]

Ludendorff had chosen tactics over strategy, leading to an operation without a clear objective. During the campaign, he kept striking at isolated tactical objectives, which changed almost daily and in which his commanders could see no strategic end goal.

[...]

Ludendorff, as a strategist on the offensive, lived from one day to the next. He let himself be driven by tactical success, which meant ceding the initiative to the enemy, or at least indirectly letting them force their will upon him. He abandoned his original operational intent – cutting the British off from the French and isolating them – as if he had never had it in the first place. His strategy became amateurish.

In short, Haffner says "the deck was stacked against whomever was on the offensive, and Germany probably couldn't have won anyway"; whereas from Venohr you get the impression that "it could have been a rousing success if Ludendorff hadn't been such an idiot." (Interestingly, Haffner collaborated with Venohr on Preußische Profile, so they can't have been complete opponents.)

So, which is closer to the truth? Was Operation Michael a real shot at victory for Germany, ruined by poor leadership – or the last hurrah of a country that was already doomed to lose the war?

(Both excerpts were translated from German by me; I apologise for any clunky phrasing.)

We have been given a riddle and we are completely stumped, we were wondering if anyone here could possibly help us out: "In the city of John the Baptist, there once was a very pious man.

After the fall of the house adorned with six spheres, he came into power and tried to impose his strict religious dogma onto the population of the city.

Unfortunately, the city turned on him and he was put to death, along with two of his brethren, in front of a very famous building.

That building will lead you to the next step." (We believe the building's name will give us a password to continue with an ARG we're trying to solve currently) Thank you for your help.

Just like the title, what did the Muslim World get from the Christians during the Crusades? I see soft references to maybe the Muslims building better castles after the crusades but not much else. Was there nothing they learned from the Europeans?