The Pope is today considered the leader and figurehead of the Catholic Church, but it wasn't always that way. I know in Roman times there were four patriarchs who were considered the important leaders of the church in their regions: in Rome, Carthage, Alexandria and Constantinople. But eventually the patriarchs of Carthage and Alexandria seem to fade from history (and of course the patriarch of Constantinople becomes the head of the Orthodox church). When did the Pope become the most important figure in the Church, and when did he get supremacy over the bishops/patriarchs of all the other major cities in the world?

I was watching a show which depicted two ancient armies charging at each other and it seemed to me that the chance of not dying when you are in the front most line is slim to none.

I'm a first year med student looking for a good book that details the history of research generated ethically/unethically by the Nazi experiments of WWII, ideally covering the details of the research, as well as the medical/non-medical uses the research has been put too since.

If videos exist, link them here

Let me begin by saying i'm sorry if this is the wrong sub. I am writing a final paper for my english class. My topic in this paper is: "Socialism has attained negative connotations in America due to a poor education of the idea of socialism, as well as the precedents that were set against socialism in America’s past." However I am having a rough time finding sources that can show how poorly americans are educated in the idea of socialism. If anyone would be able to help me out at all, it would be greatly appreciated. I am more than willing to answer any questions you have about my paper. Again, thank you.

Small unit tactics might be the wrong term, but I can't think of a better one. Basically, what I'm curious about is if we have any knowledge of how medieval soldiers would be organized and what tactics they would use in smaller skirmishes (i.e. dozens of men or fewer on a side, rather than hundreds or thousands).

I cannot for the life of me figure out where this comes from. Does it have a basis in history? Was there a kingdom at some point that required the heir to be married before he could assume the title of King? Is this modern Hollywood hullabaloo? How old is this literary device?

[deleted]

When looking at maps of the Holy Roman Empire's borders throughout the centuries it looks like the italian part of the empire was lost after the Thirty Years War. However, I can't find any mention of it anywhere. So I was wondering if the italians ever officially left the empire, and if so when that might have been?

The reason I ask is because Friedrich Trump, Donald Trump's grandfather, sailed to New York in 1885 and it would amuse me to no end if it turned out that he faced the same vitriol his grandson is now leveling at other immigrants.

Britain began to become involved in the trans Atlantic slave trade in the early 1600s and slavey wasn't abolished in the British Empire until 1833, giving us a fairly large window. Did any member of the British royal family own slaves from Africa or elsewhere?

I'm currently working my way through Trotter's A Frozen Hell. I'm certainly learning a lot, but every few pages, there's a reminder that this is very much a book published in 1990. Trotter's sources skew pretty heavily Finnish, and there are lots of comments about how reluctant the USSR is to open its archives, or how it's a subject Soviet historians tend to shy away from. It's made me curious what discoveries have come to light since the USSR collapsed, if there have been any big shifts in how the war is viewed.

Also, a little more general, what other good books are there on the Winter War? What else should I be reading? The booklist here has some Eastern Front entries, but nothing specific to the Russo-Finnish fight.

Sorry if this is a dumb question but I've just watched a documentary on the cold war and given the sheer number of nuclear weapons produced by the US and the USSR and accounting that both valued them as "peace keepers", wouldn't it be possible that one or both of these nations tricked each other into believeing that they produced more nuclear missiles than they actually did?

During a discussion about line infantry today versus a hundred years ago, it came to be said by one of the participants that the line infantry who fought during World War One were less well trained than the line infantry of today. I put it to him that perhaps the line infantry at the time were quickly processed in order to get them to the front, whereas today in first world countries there is never any particular urgency to produce line infantry, and as such they spend more time in training. Is there any truth to my hypothesis?

Mods, if this violates any rules please let me know and I'll remove it. Thank you.

I don't mean to disparage the Red Army. I wouldn't be asking if I thought it was an incompetent fighting force. But apparently 75% of the million casualties during that battle were Soviet and it confuses me.

The Soviets had defensive positions with land mines and other obstacles, good tanks and other weapons, by 1943 their troops were much better trained and equipped than in 1941, much more artillery and other firepower, and the Wehrmacht didn't achieve much of a breakthrough.

So I'm basically interested in how Olof Palme is usually regarded by both historians and the Swedish people, and to what extent contemporary Sweden follows or deviates from his vision for Sweden. Also, and I apologise if this is too subjective or breaks the 20-year-rule, but it seems to me that Palme has a lot of similarities to Jeremy Corbyn in terms of left-wing social activism and being outspoken against the dominant powers of the time, while also showing support for some questionable authoritarian leftist regimes, and I would kind of like to know to what extent that's the case and where (if anywhere) Corbyn and Palme differ.

tl;dr I'd basically like an ELI5 on Olof Palme.

Apologies for the convoluted wording.