With the Dissolution of the ottoman Empire both France and Britain gained control of Greater Syria and the Levant, They finally had control over much of the holy land, an objective of the original crusades centuries ago.

So why didnt they keep it? Did they not feel the same convictions as the crusaders? Were there no plans to create an Antioch or Jerusalem based religious area?

In what time period would someone's last name be something such as "Ericson" because their father's name was Eric? Was this the common practice in this time?

In The Second World War (1990) by John Keegan, the author makes a rather bold statement when discussing the Winter War:

Perhaps the most warlike of all European peoples, and certainly the hardiest, the Finns made circles around their Russian attackers

What evidence is there throughout European history to support the idea that Finns are as warlike as Keegan would have us believe?

So for example, would an average Greek citizen expect to be able to interact with the gods the way that Odysseus does? Did they actually think that's how the world was set up?

It is difficult to research this question due to conspiracy theories.

When I was in the Navy on submarines, we used to get daily reports on the order of battle for major ships of foreign militaries (mostly China) in the Pacific. That daily report would often show submarines, cruisers, etc... and where they were, including whether or not they were in port.

Looking back towards WW2, I know naval intelligence was nowhere near what it is today, but how in the world did that group of Japanese ships manage to transit the entire Pacific under the noses of the US Navy?

The reason I ask is that the popular conspiracy myth that they "knew" and "allowed" the attack to happen absurdly assumes that the supposed reports of Japanese ships the day before the attack on Pearl Harbor were ignored, or at best, taken as a nonissue.

Taking into account Japan's hostile actions in China prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, it seems to me that the movements of their fleet would be something high on the list of naval intelligence collection requirements at the time.

If the Japanese group of ships were traveling at 20 knots and covering the ~3,850 miles from Japan to Hawaii, it would take 6.97 days to complete the transit. Assuming that after 2 days of transit, plotting the course of the Japanese group would point towards Hawaii fairly clearly. That would leave 4 days. I understand that in terms of war time frames, 4 days is very short, but it is still surprising to me that they were able to transit all the way to Hawaii undetected.

Am I missing something here? It just seems that the movement of a naval force by a country at war, Japan, would have been of great interest.

So I'm writing an essay about northern Europe during the late Iron Age and came across this quote by gallaecian theologist named Paulus Orosius (375-418 AD). I'm not sure what he means and I was hoping you might help me? In one chapter of his Seven Books of History Against the Pagans he describes how several germanic and gaelic tribes conspire against the romans and eventually conquer them in battle. He goes on describing how the Cimbri tribe execute every surviving roman in the camp, destroy all their posessions and throw them in the river, including gold, silver, armour and horses. "In this way the victor knew no booty nor the vanquished any mercy." This puzzles me. Why would the Cimbri not want to keep the booty for themselves? Any ideas?

Hi! So I asked about this on /r/suggestmeabook but someone suggested I try here instead! I did a search to see if someone's asked already, but didn't see anything. Here's the text from my previous post:

I'm looking for some medieval romances to add to my independent study next semester. I have already read most of Chaucer, Malory's Le Morte (was my honours project), Sir Gawain, and Morgan le Fay.

Currently on the course list is: Beroul's Tristan Chretien's The knight of the cart Marie de France guigemar Havel ok the Dane Sir gawayne and dame ragnell

I need to add 5 more texts, and I'm honestly not sure what the best options may be.

(Sorry for the poor capitalization, I'm on mobile so it is such a pain with medieval texts. Hopefully I'm not breaking any rules here, please let me know if I have!)

Other than the native grasses, there was (and is) little vegetation in the semi-arid Great Plains. No fruit-bearing plants, obviously. How were indigenous peoples able to avoid scurvy?

I am aware that the Inuit, who lived in the treeless tundra, avoided scurvy by eating whale skin. There are obviously no whales in the Great Plains, however.

In particular the British fighters, such as Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell).

Were they charged with any offences when they returned to their home countries?

How were they regarded by the wider public in their home countries?

Were they questioned about their activities?

Were they allowed to return home at all?

Hi Guys! I get a bit of anxiety and nervousness talking to other people in my class or on campus, so I decided to finally create an account here and post this in hopes of getting some direction for my term paper. I have picked the topic of Norse Funerals for my research paper but I am just having troubles developing a thesis/central argument. I have already checked out a few books from the campus library and have a general idea of the content I want to include in the paper (brief description of norsemen and scandinavian vikings, the culture, social structure, burial sites, norse funeral - process), but I'm just not sure what my main point should be. The outline given to us said that the paper should be argumentative and one that will investigate a controversy. I think I may just be overwhelmed and thinking too hard because I am finding myself blanking out and getting worried more than anything.

Not looking for any direct answers, just some ideas on any events that you guys might know of that would be in connection to Norse Funerals (scandinavian vikings and their mortuary rituals). And of course, any tips on developing strong thesis' would be awesome too!

I appreciate any help I can get! Thank you :)

If there are multiple, do they agree on Themistocles' contribution?

Reading a book about "savior generals", was wondering about the accuracy of this particular portion.

Per wikipedia he was found guilty of

Count 1 (waging wars of aggression, and war or wars in violation of international law)

Count 27 (waging unprovoked war against the Republic of China)

Count 29 (waging aggressive war against the United States of America)

Count 31 (waging aggressive war against the British Commonwealth of Nations)

Count 32 (waging aggressive war against the Kingdom of the Netherlands)

Count 33 (waging aggressive war against the French Republic)

Count 54 (ordering, authorizing, and permitting inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and others)

My question is which counts were deserving of an execution? Was a war of aggression or an unprovoked war a capital crime? Or was it for Count 54, inhumane treatment of prisoners and others?

[deleted]

Have the Turks been so formidable for so long as to thwart the will of all the Czars and Soviet premiers and deny Mother Russia control of a warm water port? What's the holdup?

Switzerland is a country known for its neutrality. How come it has managed to stay so neutral and never at least to my own knowledge never been dragged into major comflicts.

How did the traditions and laws in England influence the way English colonists set up legal systems and ideas in the English American colonies?