From the sources I've seen, they appear to be peaceful, though my teacher claims there has been evidence 'somewhere' that proves that citizens protested in disrespectful/violent manner, any sources/answers you guys know of that proves this?

Thanks!

Why was there a (lay? parish-level? episcopal?) movement of radical liturgical reform, did this really pre-date the council, or was it spun up during the council's session? Did they think they were "reading between the lines"? Were they right? Were most council theologians surprised at how their writings were interpreted? How uniform was the liturgical overturn across different national and linguistic ecclesiastical communities?

How did the natives of the Caribbean and the Americas view things like rape? For instance, was it illegal among their civilizations? Secondly, what types of slavery were practised among the native peoples of the Americas and how did it defer from the chattel slavery practiced by the Europeans? I ask this because I frequently encounter descendants of the Conquistadors and English colonists that claim that the natives practiced slavery and rape and "land stealing" among themselves, which was equivalent to what Europeans did to the entire continent of North and South America and the Caribbean Islands. I just wanted to know if these claims are true.

I've just watched oversimplified on the norman conquest subjetct and i found it an amazing story... so i'd like to ask if there is a in depth book for entusiasts. Any suggestions?

In Sienkiewicz's work, he depicted the Siege of Zbarazh as so:

The poles built wooden/earth fortifications outside the walls of Zbarazh to prevent cannons from being brought close enough to attack the walls and protected the fort using WWI-like trenches.

The Khmielinsky met with Jeremy, demanding surrender.

After surrender was refused, the poles celebrated with fireworks and cannonfire during the night and the Cossacks were threatened by their tatar allies for no easy capture.

The next day, the cossacks stormed the trenches outside Zbarazh on foot and horse, and were promptly beat back by the charge of winged hussars and dragoons countering them.

Afterwards, the siege is depicted as both sides shelling each other with artillery for weeks and night-time raids trying to sabotage the other side's artillery and fortifications.

Why did the cossacks try and force an engagement over the trenches?

The poles sallying forth makes sense - they had limited food and needed to break out to clear space for a messenger to request back up, and they needed the trenches to block artillery from threatening the walls proper.

But why did the cossacks engage before the poles sallied out? They were fighting uphill and into artillery fire and cavalry charge when they had the logistical and numbers advantage over a siege.

There's a few factors to consider, I reckon. How long would it take for a light field howitzer of any nation to begin effective fire, and what if the battery was being towed when the request came in?

Was there sort of a German resistance movement?

Like was it a close fight or was the states completely overpowering compared to the confederacy?

I rewatched Schindler’s list and I saw Commondant Amon Goeth effectively rape Helen Hirsch, his Jewish servant. Did Nazi soldiers rape the Jewish women in concentration camps? If so, wouldn’t it violate the whole Nazi principle of dealing with the so called “Jewish Problem”. In the eastern front, Nazi rape was a power dominance move over the ‘Untermensch’ however Nazi demeanor towards the Jews was that of abhorrence and completely disconnecting themselves with the Jews while seeking to wipe them out. So did Nazi soldiers rape Jewish women?

Title pretty much says it all. Its a very specific question, but im just curious if this has ever happaned

With all the digging of trenches and destruction from artillery shelling, a lot of earth was moved during WW1. I'm just curious whether there were reports of archaeological findings along the various fronts.

I have seen an image circulate Reddit recently saying that DNA evidence backs this and want to know if this was something that actually occurred. And if this is true, how were they treated? Were they slaves? Abducted, sold, etc? And once in Europe, did they become a “naturalized” member of the Vikings ?

I’ve been having a hard time finding a non euro-centric book or course that is able to delve into African history in a meaningful way. Most of the ones I find don’t take native perspectives into account, don’t talk about the social influences, and heavily focus on colonialism from a western perspective. Would anyone know of some solid resources? (I’ve also checked the booklist for this sub).

I'm interested in how Europe was politically and economically reconstructed after WWII.

-How countries liberated from German occupation established a new government, police force, and military (or how much of these remained intact during occupation?). Who was running the power plants and railroads in 1943 vs 1947?

-How Europe was fed in those first years of economic and infrastructural devastation.

-How does a French factory making German tanks with forced labor go back to making toasters?

-How the refugee crisis war dealt with.

-How did a country like the Netherlands reestablish control over its colonies?

-How we went from the morgenthau plan and reparations to assisting the rebuilding of the German economy. Similarly, how denazification was undertaken.

-Ideally also addressing similar questions about the Soviet Bloc.

Overall I want something that's looking at these issues from more of a domestic and continental perspective rather than seeing these through just a cold war lens that is often so dominant. Obviously the cold war is critical to the story but I'm looking for a little more nuts and bolts. The core time period I'm interested in would be something like 1944-1960.

If I’m looking for (history) book reviews, are there legitimate or, otherwise, well-known blogs or sites that one can check out?

As a new “fan” of History I’d like to be able to filter out books that may be too skewed in an ideological direction or watered down in a pop-History sense.

Aside from the obvious past vs present dichotomy, I'm confused as to what the real differences in methodology is between doing history and doing journalism. Both are concerned with discerning truth from fiction and deal in facts as much as is possible; both consider the biases/points of view of those with whom/which they inquire; both are concerned with crafting narratives around facts; etc.

The 1619 Project is what comes to mind most readily when I think about this question, as it was very heavily criticized by historians, but at the same time, while those criticisms were valid, I think they also missed the point that the purpose was to deliberately put slavery at the center of the American story in a way that hadn't been done before.

What am I missing?