I have had immense frustration with finding any information on the Byzantines besides the most famous stuff, I have studied the history of the Empire extensively for well over a year now, books, Publishes papers regarding history, culture, military etc.

There seems to be an absolute lack of information on the Byzantines, the fact that I could find out virtually anything about medieval England, a minor island kingdom that was underdeveloped and puny for most of the Middle Ages yet the gargantuan cultural, economic and military Christian superpower that endured the largest wars of medieval history and head on clashed with the unstoppable capital, scientific achievements leading to moving mechanical statues with sounds emitting from them, Greek fire, avid record keeping, a military as well organised, advanced disciplined and constantly evolving military comparable to modern first world militaries in terms of organisation/professional operation capabilities; all this and yet all I can find it just the histories of the emperors lives and religious controversies. I’ve heard it all Nikephoros, Tzimisces, belisarius, Basil etc.

I want to know what Constantinople was like in detail, I want to know what the everyday people of the Muslim world, the nobles even the caliphs themselves thought of Byzantium, it’s culture, it’s cities and structures, it’s legacy and most of all its military, especially during the 850-1050 era, were there superstitions the common people of the caliphate had about the Byzantines? What did Muslim soldiers think before fighting them or what did they say it was like fighting them? Did the Caliphs/Emirs to some extent their might as the only nation to majorly ground their unstoppable conquests to a halt??

Anyone who could answer these questions and/or guide me to sources to learn more myself would be great

Would someone recommend a very good History of Russia book? I am looking for a complete history-definitive, seems to be very difficult to find a good quality title.

Everyone knows that the Europeans brought with them multiple diseases that were unknown to the New World, inflicting devastation on a massive scale to the native peoples like the Aztecs, Mayans, Inca, etc. So how come the Vikings didn't do the same when they made contact with the locals? Are there any reports or chronicles about natives dying en masse due to smallpox or something similar ?

I've read that a enormous amount of French soilders became POWs after the surrender of France, something like 1.8 million POWs. What happened to them? How many of them made it through the war?

As a secondary question, if they were real, who placed these bounties? Were they limited to governments, or could individuals or private companies ever declare somebody "wanted" in the American West?

Reading the Iliad atm and it frequently mentions characters stripping the dead of their armour after killing them.

Was this an actual practice? I get that it is a story and the battle is jumping through time (aeneas being near-fatally wounded then fully healed a few lines later) but Homer phrases it like they were stripped immediately after being killed.

I appologise if this is the wrong sub to ask, just wanted to know if this was a real practise.

Let’s say a Duke or a Viscount marries a non noble woman who has children from her previous marriage. Are the children now lords and lady’s? Will they be known as Lady _____ or Miss_____ ? What about the boys?

As we know the BAR was developed during the later stages of WW1 and when comes to it's role as an LMG it didn't performed well. But why didn't the US tried to replace the BAR with something more modern like how the British adopted the ZB vz 26 for example. Or Why didn't the US upgraded the BAR to suite the role of an LMG better like how the Belgians did it with their version of the FN models of the BAR with a pistol grip and a quick changed barrel?

In the modern context, in the United States at least, I understand the accusation of “dual loyalty” generally meaning that the accuser believes their target is not loyal to their home country, but rather Israel. I’ve heard the term thrown around most of my life, and I assumed it must have begun sometime after the formation of Israel.

However, when recently watching a video critiquing anti semitic tropes, I found out the accusation of “dual loyalty” was common during the Dreyfus affair, long before the formation of Israel or the Zionist movement. My question is, when accusing Dreyfus and other Jews of having “dual loyalty”, to what specifically did the accusers believe the accused were loyal to? Was it some imaginary “Jewish plot”, or was the term more synonymous with “disloyalty”, or just general corruption and willingness to betray France for personal gain?

I understand the significance of historiography and why it is important to field of History. The question I have is why is revisionism and/or revisionist historians tend to be "vilified" by the general population due to the perceived attack on the conventional history.

Why has the term revisionist become derogatory in the historical field?

Hi y'all, I was curious as to how soldiers were typically equipped during the time of the English Civil War. Were weapons typically personal property that soldiers brought with them when conscripted or rather, were the weapons provided by the lords that levied/conscripted these armies? Was it a combination? Thank you in advance!

I'm considering writing a book set in occupied Germany and I've been wondering, how were former Nazi officials seen by regular citizens during denazification? Were they looked down upon, resented, or were they mostly forgiven? How sympathetic was the average German citizen to former Nazis and did these former officials ever fully reintegrate back into German life? To be clear, I'm talking about lower ranking officials that had supporteted the regime, no one at the top.

I’m looking into women’s history in Maryland, particularly women’s roles during the settlement period/colonial period. Does anyone know good sources to consult? I’m looking for books, websites, etc. Honestly anything!

I have a passage that is used in one of my ELA lessons and I would love to know if there are any issues with this from a Japanese history and culture perspective?

"In 1633, Japan was being ruled by its final feudal government or "shogunate.” Shogunates were led by a "shogun," a military ruler who held almost absolute power. At this time, the shogunate was run by the Tokugawa family clan.

Up to this point, Japan had been a rising attraction for foreign trade. Though global attention had some benefits, it also came with problems. Trade with other countries invited piracy, which flared along Japan’s coasts. It also sped the arrival of Catholicism from Spain and Portugal. European influence soon took root in the south of Japan and was spreading.

The shogunate did not like this at all. They did not like the erosion of traditional Japanese culture. Perhaps more than that, they saw the colonial influence as a threat to their power.

The shogun in 1633, Tokugawa Iemitsu, took action. In order to stop this "cultural invasion,” he enacted a sakoku, a strict policy to isolate Japan from the rest of the world. The word "sakoku” means "closed country.” Under the sakoku, trade and migration were strictly limited. Most foreigners were not allowed into the country. Japanese nationals were not allowed out. The sakoku held for 220 years. It finally came to an end in 1853."

Thoughts?

This may sound strange, but I am from Eastern Europe.

Almost all oil countries have weak economies. Why is it different in Norway? Were there any incidents of corruption in Government Pension Fund of Norway or attempts to steal oil money?

I’ve heard of these people, and that they’re decently widespread across Europe, but I have no clue about who they actually are, where they came from, and their own history. Was hoping some of you here could teach me about these people. (Trying this again because I had Gy**** in the title and I didn’t know it was a slur for them, whoops!)

Things such as: how they maintained public order and ensured their laws were followed. How they determined and collected taxes, and what other forms of income they potentially had. How was power further divided under them (e.g. who managed a specific city within their realm), and what where their obligations to their lord. What kind of advisors or councilors did a ruler typically have (did they actually have things such as a chancellor and a spymaster?). If a ruler had some specific building project in mind, how was this put into practice / who managed it. etc.

These are things I didn't see mentioned in this subs booklist. I'd especially like if the books compared how these things differed from one place to another.

I know “why” (the cost of the freed slaves) but I can’t imagine the slaves who liberated themselves with sweat, blood, and tears would be too big on that. Why did they agree to pay? Or, more likely, who forced them to pay?