Does anyone know if there are complete on-line versions of both of these documents, preferably translated? I have Noonans translation for Gratian but I cant find the Liber Extra. Does any one have any ideas?

Cheers!

Contains minor spoilers about the show Vikings

Hey, having seen the latest episode of the TV show Vikings I was wondering if it's accurate that the Normans used crossbows already. I did some research on Rollo the Viking who became the leader of the Normans at around the year 900 but it's hard to find accurate information about crossbows. I read that, in europe they started commonly using them in the 13th century. Now, the Normans have been using a lot of crossbows in this episode, the usual simple medieval type. Does that make any sense for that time (late 9th century/early 10th century)? Also, I found it a little weird that the Vikings were using crossbows too (sure they could have gotten them from their pillages) but also in a very treacherous way where the enemy had no chance to fight back, I don't think they even had weapons. As far as I know the mentality of the Vikings was all about honour and fairness. So, am I wrong here or would that have been very unlikely?

Thank you!

As the title implies I'm curious on the economic development of Manchukuo during its existence as a Japanese puppet, from what I've heard it was to be an industrial powerhouse in Asia had the war not started, what was its output at its height? Did it rival Japan or China? What cities/regions were major centers?

This has been a curiosity of mine for a while since languages change so much over time. I don't know if this question has been asked on here before, if so can someone post a link? In addition does it matter regionally?

To give some context, we were going over earthquakes in my geology class. My professor goes on to explain about the damage done by the 1556 earthquake of Shaanxi. Nothing too crazy, right? Then she puts an image on the screen that she explains is a photograph from 1556. How is this possible considering that cameras of the quality weren't invented until the 19th century? Did the town not rebuild and left the rubble sitting for 300 years? I'm very confused. Help?

My uncle was arguing with me that during his childhood (1960s and 70s in a suburb of Boston), the swastika was a symbol of Germany. He claimed that there was no anti-Semitic connotation or usage as a symbol of hatred or white supremacy at that time.

I (26 years old) find this hard to believe, since I've always associated the swastika with the Holocaust and have always known it as a cultural taboo, if not hate speech.

Was the swastika a symbol of white supremacy and racial hatred in the decades following WWII or is this a more recent development?

Weren't there conflicts? Who decided when to use Manchu or Chinese ?

I was reading Rana Mitter's new book, China's war with Japan and there was mention of the German trained Chinese divisions that fought in Shanghai. Was it useful and were there other kinds of assistance?

Advice for additional reading too?

So I've read a few sources on why the Roman Republic fell (Gracchuses, Sulla, Marius, Caesar, etc), and it makes sense to me that the Roman Republic was destined to fail. What's less clear to me is why Rome became a monarchy after the disintegration of the Republic.

Why didn't Rome form a new Republic (say via radical constitutional change) or even collapse under its own weight?

[deleted]

I know there's a good deal of evidence regarding what heavy infantry and cavalry wore, but I'm very curious what was common among "poorer" soldiers in war.

I am looking for a book that dives into his political life as well as a broad overview of the political climate of the time.

I want to learn all I can about the Indian Wars, but I find that I forget details, or my interpretation of something is incorrect or just different from someone else's. My idea is: what if I made a post in which I regurgitate all the information I know about something like the events leading up to the Little Bighorn and the other users on /r/AskHistorians either correct or fill gaps in the information. Of course it would be all from memory and Google-free. This way I could shore up my knowledge and correct anything that doesn't make sense or is inaccurate. I'm just tired of being called an idiot or dumbass because I have one little fact wrong. I want to learn and put what I know (or think I know) up for respectful discussion/correction.

St. Augustine claimed that Plato's ideas were very similar to the Pentateuch and that he must have read it. Philo I think I had a similar notion about it. Are Plato's ideas similar enough to Jewish works for there to be a possible claim that one of them was influenced by the other? Though based on dates, it would make sense for Plato to be influenced by Judaism, rather than influence it. Or was it simply coincidental? Or to be more specific, did Paul incorporate his preconceived views of neoplatonism into his sayings? I am not very knowledgeable about that period of time so forgive me if I completely messed up the timings.

I am interested in the logistics of pre-industrial armies, especially the 13th and 14th century in europe.

How many farmes would be roughly needed to support a knight?

I have heard the following numbers (without source), are they remotely accurate and verifiable?

• ~90 farmers support about
• 10 artisans and/or people living in cities and
• one full time soldier

The answer is of course dependant on farming and weapon technology, but how much do those numbers vary over the iron age?

I always thought (larger) militias and/or conscript armies were not used because of cultural reason (it is the noble's / lord's duty to protect the peassants) and organisational problems, but was recently told that arming farmers would do no good anyway. I would be very happy if someone could enlighten me about the topic.

I am reading up on the Israel-Palestine conflicts, and an area of significant interest is obviously the promises made by the British to the various parties of the middle east during World War 1. I have been trying to find material on how British foreign policy for the region actually worked.

Charles D. Smith states, in his work on the matter (Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict) that "What emerges most clearly is the nature of the great powers' decision-making process, which, in words of one scholar, was 'exceedingly informal, flexible, and by design almost, amateurish.' Individuals rather than governments or united cabinets made decisions."

I haven't found quite enough on the exact offices that made these decisions, and the degree of independence they had to make promises/obligations. What exactly was the structure of foreign policy in the middle east during WW1?

As a bonus: Were the promises made to the Arabs and Zionists (Husayn-McMahon and Balfour) purely out of expediency, or was it also due to the unfortunate floundering of individuals in this supposedly decentralized system?

So I remember in high school when discussing Spain's colonial empire that "They didn't really understand the concept of supply and demand back then, and that gold's value was significantly devalued by so much of being brought back to the mother country."

So why questions are as follows.

1. Was that much gold really brought back from the colonies?

2. Were people 'unaware' of supply and demand, and was gold devalued?

3. If so, did this have any negative impacts on the economy, or was it more gold = good even if it's worth less?