I've spent most of my adult life convinced that the Council of Nicaea chose what books made it into the bible. And recently learned this isn't true. But this feels like a very common misconception, where did this come from and what is the truth?

When he conquered England, many Lords had surrendered to him and he established his authority further in the harrying of the north.

Did he simply murder all of the old nobility? If he didn’t, what did that nobility do after their titles were stripped? How did the population of England view the new Norman elite, was there resentment and a remaining support for their old nobility?

I’m a foreigner living in the US (moved here from Israel). Before coming here I have never seen a chiropractor’s office, known a chiropractor or heard people talk of seeing their chiropractor. Moved to a medium size town in the US and seems like they are everywhere, lots of people mention visiting them and feeling so great after their visits. This greatly surprised me, as back home chiro is generally considered pseudoscience and most people would rather visit an MD for their health issues. I assume this is another one of those things that are unique to the US, but if my premise is wrong please let me know.

Edit: Because I see a lot of deleted comments claiming it is or isn’t pseudoscience, I wanted to clarify that in this context I care less about whether it is pseudoscience or isn’t and more about how the perception of chiropractic as pseudoscience or not may have affected its status in the US and the rest of the world. You all are entitled to your own opinions about it. Carry on.

I wonder why this happened in Germany, of all places. There must be a quite a bit of history behind this?

Edit: I guess i have to point out the quite obvious reason i'm asking this:

There were so few jews in pre-war Germany that it seems weird that anyone cared about their existence at all. Especially since they looked just like other people and probably were not being too vocal about their religious background, even before the nazi times.

Honestly it's pretty hard for me to see how anyone would see my question as victim blaming and it's pretty annoying.

I was researching about slavery in ancient Greece for a project of mine and wanted to get an overview on it with some specific questions.

1. How did slaves earn money to buy their freedom?
2. What happened after they were freed?
3. What differences were there in the living conditions of an agricultural slave and a household slave?
4. How did the slave trade work?
5. What was the usual amount of slaves a wealthy man owned?

I’m doing A Level coursework about the Chinese Civil War and I’m really struggling to find first hand accounts about the generalissimo that I can reference.

I’ve read one from General Stillwell that said he was a “stubborn, ignorant, prejudiced conceived despot… a grasping, bigoted, ungrateful little rattlesnake.” I believe this comes from the Stillwell papers published in 1948 but to be honest I’m not certain.

This would be a great primary source for my essay but I can’t access the stillwell papers online for free and I don’t know what page it’s from or how to reference it. It’s really annoying me because I’d love to include it.

If anyone could help me out with any other sources or if you know where this quote comes from I’d really appreciate it.

Aside from both taking place in Great Britain of course.

Whenever people talk about historical naval rations it's always the usual culprits of hard tack and salted beef from British and other European ships.

Which makes me wonder about other cultures since they're not the only people who have been sailing the seas. Did sailors from asian countries such as china and japan eat something similar except with ingredients native to their country? Did they have like their own equivalent of hard tack, etc?

Just thinking about it blows my mind. Knowing that you are in the direct line of fire with no sandbags, no body armor and no reliable cover, wearing bright colors that don't blend in the environment and put together in a rigid formation. How do napoleonic era (I'm using this era since it's more synonymous with flintlock warfare) soldiers even have the will to stand directly at the enemy and just hope to not get shot?

My knowledge of the civil war/revolution in my country comes from two major sources:

The first is from the Mexican education system which is heavily biased in favor of the Carrancistas and takes a very bourgeois, secular, liberal view of the era which privileges the worldview of the élites in the capital against the North and South, landowners and peasants, Catholics and leftists. The second is from my own family, especially my grandfather who studied history, whose own grandfather died in the early years of the war and whose uncle died fighting against the communists in Spain, his opinion is that the United States saw that the country was thriving during the Porfiriato and did not like the idea of having a competitor to the south along with the British Empire to the north, and that also this was the era of so called progressive imperialism and took the view that Mexico was a backward, Catholic, feudal and illiberal nation that had to be transformed into something else more to their liking, closer to the values of the Northern European Protestant world that the United States held, so they supported unrest and revolution to depose governments that were not progressive enough, first against the great Porfirio Díaz by supporting the Plan de San Luis and Madero, and then when he was deposed because the country did not want such a leftist and replaced by Victoriano Huerta, the United States openly fought against him and had him deposed before arresting him and holding him until he died, before finally installing their puppet Venustiano Carranza and helping him to defeat the final patriotic faction in the war, the Felicistas, which allowed for many decades of rule by the pro-US, bourgeois liberal PRI.

Obviously things are very nuanced and confusing in this conflict, though I am sympathetic to the idea that the United States interferes in other nations not only to serve their financial and military interests but to impose liberal and bourgeois values, because I see this with my own eyes as a dual citizen of the US and Mexico. I am looking for great sources to learn as much as possible about this era, thank you!

I understand that in the "Columbian Exchange," one of the things brought over from the Old World was smallpox, which killed the vast majority of the native population. I get this is because that was a new disease to the natives, so they had none of the resistance/immunity that Europeans did.

How come the opposite was not true? I'm recommended to have certain vaccinations to travel to South and Central America just being from the United States. How did none of the conquistadors/explorers/pioneers not bring back any deadly diseases on the scale of what happened to the natives?

It got me thinking because there's historicity to be obtained from Homer's works, and I was wondering if some of these characters could've represented real people turned into legends, similarly to how Gilgamesh became a legend yet we have reasonable proof he was an actual king.

I always wondered this, but never got a straight answer. Some people would say that he was extremely racist, and some people say that he believed in racial equality. Some people were in-between and said that he believed in racial equality, but held prejudice towards certain ethnic groups (Jews are the ones I’d see mentioned the most). I’ve heard mostly positive things when it comes to Joseph Stalin and his views on race, but I never went too in depth.

Did he ever protest her imprisonment in England or make any serious moves (diplomatic or otherwise) to have her released? What was his reaction to her execution?

I am writing a thing for school about the military technology used during the american war of independence. I want to compare the technology the americans and the british used and then the tactics that they used and that led the americans to victory. What are some books about this subject that i could use as sources?

Hi, some Egyptian nationalists have been bragging about this issue that "only Egypt has a science with its name".... I'm Egyptian myself but I actually don't buy what they are saying.. So here's the question: Is it really that " Egyptology" is one of a kind? Or it's just a relatively modern term that came up after Napoleon's campaign discoveries?