He lost on both fronts. 30 years later Hitler tried the same thing. He cruised into France, but failed to make any reasonable dent in Russia.

Is there something reasonably sophisticated about Russia that makes it difficult to invade?

I got to thinking about the Protestant Reformation today and while it obviously had a huge impact on the area of Europe we call Germany, it seems the further you go from there the less influential the split really was (England notwithstanding). I know the French Huguenots were a fairly large 'heretic' population in Catholic France, but I can't recall ever hearing about any major movements in Italy (or Spain, for that matter!). Was the influence of the Catholic Church simply so great in the Italian peninsula that no one sided with Luther?

[deleted]

Was having a discussion with someone about this, and I am curious. They didn't know the answer so they suggested I post here to ask. Are there any recorded cases of this?

Edit: To clarify I mean as prisoners not as guards. Maybe they helped Jews escape, had a turn of heart, etc.

From what I have read, his reconquest of the Western Roman Empire and North Africa is outstanding and should be be placed alongside other great campaigns. Why is he such a relatively obscure figure?

I've always felt that the lack of a "beast of burden" was a major reason pre-Columbian people did not advance.

Is there any sign that attempts were made to domesticate bison? It seems like someone would have had the idea to capture, raise, and breed calves.

I understand that the heavy infantry were the land owners that could afford shields, spears and armor. They stayed loyal because the state protected their land and family through its laws, so fighting for the state was, as an extension, fighting for land and family.

But light infantry, being (typically) unable to afford panopoly, didn't necessarily own land, so how could a city state rely on them to be loyal?

[deleted]

For example, the Apocalypse of St. Paul claims legitimacy by echoing Paul's recollection of heaven (i.e. "...I was caught up in my body to the third heaven, and this is what I heard") and even though that's directly contradictory to something Paul says in 2 Corinthians, it was hugely popular anyway. I know that's not Revelation but it's the one that immediately came to mind.

Basically I'm wondering how the author of Revelation (mostly just because of how apocalyptic it is) was able to convince people that it WAS divine insight and came from a higher authority.

I'm watching Maleficent and I was wondering what the importance or meaning of the spinning wheel was. Was it just a random normal household object? Did it have greater meaning at the time when the fairy tale was written/originated?

I've been reading the book called Maximalism about U.S. foreign policy by Sestonovich, and it seems like Truman, Kennedy, and then Johnson had little interest in the war. And yet each gets more dragged into it. I understand the idea of domino theory and containment, but why was it such a big deal, especially to the state dept. and the Pentagon? Was it the image it would give of the U.S. if a country fell to communism? Or were there more motivations from domestic interests, like the military industrial complex? Each of the presidents, especially Johnson, seemed more involved with other things, like the Great Society.

I am having trouble finding specific differences between the two, if the act of 1793 wasn't being enforced enough why would passing another change that?

What caused them to never move past stone tools, and no real form of government. No livestock farms, currency, etc...

In a lot of media the archer/hunter character is either wearing a hood or a bycocket hat (robin hood hat). I understand the use of hoods but the hats always looked a little too "costume-y" to me. I have seen images of them being worn back then, I'm just wondering if it was more a fashion statement and if the serious hunter would have worn a hood instead.

I'm also wondering about cloaks. While I know they were definetly used, I'm not convinced that they were practical for archers/hunters. Surely they would get in the way. You always see them in fantasy but then that's fantasy. You never see them being worn in pictures of military archers.

So yeah, were they really that practical for outdoor work? Or merely a fashion statement/show of wealth?

Or could it even be a hollywood thing where, despite there being evidence of their usage, their popularity wasn't as great as the movies would have you believe? e.g - The back quiver.

Thanks.

Might not be an appropriate question for r/askhistorians, but just thought I'd ask. Thanks!

[deleted]

Winston Churchill got authorization to mine the Norwegian Coast to protect against a German assault by way of the Atlantic shortly before the German invasion, yet I can't find anything that says whether or not the mines hampered the German plans at all. It seems like the Germans were able to drop troops wherever they pleased along the coast, which I'm assuming is what the mines were supposed to prevent. This is kind of a minor point in World War II history, but I'm wondering if anyone knows what happened?

*Oops, I meant 1940.

I was wondering how different cultures/civilizations would have explained fossil bones if they encountered them. Are there any historical records that describe fossil remains, prior to the field of paleontology being developed? Is it possible that the idea for Western dragons from the middle ages or monsters from antiquity (such as the minotaur etc.) are interpretations of the bones they found, or are they purely the works of over imaginative folktales?

Obviously today we know they aren't "monsters" but back then if you happend across the remains while digging/mining etc. it must have come as a massive shock and been the talk of the town, how would the church have explained the remains, if they were even interested/contacted?

I hope I'm asking in the right subreddit.

E.g. would it be the equivalent of Gordon Brown's scottish accent as prime minister of the UK?

[deleted]

[deleted]