Recently my brother and I were discussing some history and he told me that the Battle of Agincourt led to the rise of Joan d'Arc. I find this kind of funny, since there was more than a decade between the two events.

Is there any merit to my brothers claim?

Do contemporary historians view him as a treasonous Nazi collaborator, or a man who was simply trying to make the best of a bad situation? It's mentioned on Wikipedia that de Gaulle was afraid of rioting at the conclusion of Pétain's trial - but is there more depth on how the French public viewed him at the war's end?

Has support for him changed since the war?

How do I sign up? Can I, considering I have no experience at sea? Will I work on a military vessel? How will it be assigned and how do I learn my trade? How do I learn new skills and rise in rank?

As we know allies retreated as far as back to the Marne, leaving north of France unoccupied. Why didn't the Germans take advantage of this?

I'm currently reading Vol. 1 of Robert Caro's biography on LBJ. The introduction has an anecdote about LBJ that tries to illuminate to the reader some of the sources of LBJ's insecurities and ambitions. Here's an excerpt:

He talked repeatedly about his realization that a seat in Congress was no hedge against that fate; so many times since he had come to Washington, he said, he had seen former Congressmen, men who had once sat in the great Chamber as he was sitting now, but who had lost their seats—as, he said, he himself would inevitably one day lose his—working in poorly paid or humiliating jobs. Again and again, he harked back to one particular incident he could not get out of his mind: while riding an elevator in the Capitol one day, he had struck up a conversation with the elevator operator—who had said that he had once been a Congressman, too. He didn’t want to end up an elevator operator, Johnson said."

It sounds like an embellishment on LBJ's part. Caro's notes don't say anything about who the Congressman was nor does he express any skepticism in the text. Anyone have any idea as to the validity of this story? What about any other possible similar situations?

I read that Manichaeism was successful for a while, and even competed with Christianity for a short period of time. What caused Christianity to 'win out' in the Roman Empire, and what caused the fall of Manichaeism in Persia and China later on?

Moreover, are conditions as bad as they are now in comparison to colonial rule?

My dad seems to think they're just kind of guessing, and I couldn't find anything with a quick google search.

I'm trying to have a healthy discussion with a friend, and we are not clear on the difference between a khan (like Genghis or Kublai) and a king. My friend keeps arguing that Kublai is a king because he is referred to as a "king" by some historian (apparently), but my understanding is that the title of Khan is supposed to be more like an emperor or king of kings (after all, its called the mongol empire, not mongol kingdom).

The discussion seems to boil down to defining emperor vs king, I guess.

If Kublai is an emperor, am I supposed to interpret that literally as "king of kings"? Were there other "kings" (what would they be called?) throughout his mongol empire that just had to answer to Kublai, but really they kinda ruled over their own local kingdom, area semi-autonomously, or did Kublai actually govern as the sole head over the whole empire? If the previous scenario was the case, did Kublai serve as a "king" governing his own local area?

Internet searching points me to ideas about whether an area is conquered via military or if born into ruling that determines king vs emperor. Kublai is clearly born into some ruling power, but he also conquers some new land like China and whatnot, so that doesn't make this easier.

So Ive been looking at modern diets of both workmen and upper classes in where I am. I'm also doing research of how to cheaply meet the dietary requirements of strength training - and of course I wondered how did people back in the day eat to build muscle? How likely or unlikely a person to have a high muscle low fat build as what we can now achieve thanks to modern economy and health education.

To be clear, at the intersection of lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron. There are a few small towns along the way with pops around 50k, but there's no city like Detroit, or Chicago, or Buffalo like there are in all of the other major checkpoints in the Mississippi-Great lakes-erie canal trade system of the 1800s. Why didn't anybody settle there?

So I've been taught that the Germanic tribes defeated and ended the Roman Empire, or at least the eastern parts of it. Are there modern Italians who are related to the members of those Germanic tribes? If so, is it a substantial amount?

Thanks for the help!

In one of my classes we were discussing the events that lead to the Civil War and got on the subject of abolition. We started talking about free soilers and how they thought the the abolisment of slavery and the free labor system would be more beneficial to our country economically and morally. But then we started talking about groups of abolitionist that were anti-slavery but anti ex slave. As in they wanted slavery gone because it would be beneficial economically but did not want to compete with former slaves in the labor force and in some cases wanted them deported. Can someone shed more light on this? What was the name of this group? What was some of its main figures?

What compelled them to stay in such a harsh enviroment as Alaska/Yukon/Nunavut/Northwest Territories? Why did they stop moving after they cross the Bering Strait?

Specifically, why would a medieval knight wear a cape? Are there combat applications?

I caught a few episodes of "Hunting Hitler" on the History channel. It seemed pretty interesting and they seemed to find some pretty good evidence that this is what happened. Any truth to this theory?

Close to Sinatra's 100th birthday, I was in Palm Springs and celebrated with a classic of 1960's high-end cuisine, namely surf and turf. This got me thinking -- although seafood was certainly both expensive and popular at the time, would Frank and his buddies have ordered raw fish in a Japanese restaurant?

Or stated more broadly: if not as early as the 1960's, when did sushi become a popular food in the US?

Would there be different crew member sizes? Number of broadside cannons, mortars, bow cannons, etc? Different ranks in crew members (such as different ones on one rate, but not on another rate)?