Byzantium had defended itself from the east for centuries. How did the crusaders breach the walls that protected Byzantium?

Since he spent all his time fighting and didn't really have any time left to act as a regular ruler, did the conquered people really feel like they were part of his empire or was it more of a "that guy kicked our ass, I hope he doesn't come back" type of situation?

I consider myself an amateur historian of sorts, but I was in a very interesting discussion with one of my coworkers yesterday. She was born in Poland and suggested that Poland has historically always been oppressed by other armies. And in doing so they were always blameless and taken advantage of, and never resorted to the sort of violence against others that has been historically enacted on them.

ex: "The 1939 September Campaign" and the "Ausländerkinder-Pflegestätte" Children work camps. But that they have never dont anything of the sort to others.

While I'm sure that they never matched the scale as the 20thc Germans, I refuse to believe that a nation over 1,000 years old has never used tactics that today we would find inexcusable.

My point is that war has always been horrible and brutal and no nation is excused in this. The problem is I just don't know enough about Polish history to help bolster my point.

Are there examples of Poles being as ruthless in war as every other nation state?

Party on dudes. -Guy1000

[deleted]

Today, as a 130lb male, moderately active (I do exercise, but work in an office), I need about 1950-2000 kcal a day to remain at constant weight and not feel hungry or weak. Would I have trouble eating as much in the late Middle Ages? during Carolingian times? Under Augustus in Italy? as a German/Celt villager a few centuries BC?

I've often heard that the Crusades were not actually referred to as the Crusades during their time. I've just come across a part in the Iron King by Marice Druon where crusading is referred to as crusading. If it is true that the word 'Crusade' is a later invention, how were the crusades defined in say the late 13th and early 14th century?

Hi, i am curious to know how China supported succesfully North Korea with Troops, and could stand up against the United States.
When 5 Years earlier (1945) They couldnt defeat the Japanese forces in theyre own territories, did China recover its Military forces that fast after WWII?
Thank you in Advance for your Answer

I am curious as to the reactions of the Christian world to the fall of Jerusalem. I cant find any primary sources on this.

I heard the argument made that the church in Rome would not care about this but I find that hard to believe. Are there any sources on this?

Considering the strategic location of our little Island it would seem to make sense, go to a land where the native population mostly hates your biggest rival use them as a base of operations for attacks on England while also attacking from the other side.

How close was the UK to Capitulating in WW2 during / before the Battle of Britain?

I know that if Hitler has concentrated on destroying the RAF Germany could have got Air Superiority, but was their the political will in the UK Parliament to make a deal with him? Could Churchill have been deposed?

Or could Hitler have had more success attacking the convoys and isolating UK?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I am interested in this question: how do the historians prove somebody really exist, and he really did something?

Let's use Aristotle and his Politica as example. We say 'Aristotle wrote Politica thousands years ago', but isn't it also possible that Renaissance scholars phony this book and added their opinions to it? Because anyway our current knowledge about ancient Greek people and books are from quotes by the scholars. Arabic scholars collected and translated books, and Renaissance scholars found them and re-introduced them to European. Among all these processes and long time periods, many things can go wrong. Three could be translation error, there could be words distortion, adding or deleting...

Although I don't believe the latter one, I can't find a very strong argument to support the first statement.

We can't say 'because the ancient people said so, therefore it is true' because ancient people may lie and their words could also be distorted by the quoter. If the archeology finds some old scripts, it only can prove that some parts of the book is old enough, but not necessary 100 percent belongs to Aristotle. It is still possible that many writers contribute individual chapters or opinions, and someone late has combined all the thoughts to one book and put Aristotle's name at the beginning of the book.

So what other strong evidences do we have to prove those famous books, from philosophy to physics to politics to logic..., were really wrote by Aristotle and what we read today are consistence with what he wrote at that time, rather than it is faked or gathered by someone else? Or do we simply 'believe' it because the other possibilities are too unlikely and too conspiracy?