Is there any specific reason here? So soon after his death?

The most I can find is internal power struggles, but surely that doesn't really hit the nail on the head.

Any help appreciated along with any recommended further links or reading.

Thank you

I would be happy if someone recommends me a book, website etc.

So I got bitten by my recurring bug of World War II history (whilst recovering from my other recurring bug - the Flu!) and decided to watch enemy at the gates as I couldn't find any decent documentaries on Netflix UK and came up with a few questions about Stalingrad, but which I would also be interested in having generally answered for the Eastern front, or other major battles such as Leningrad or Berlin:

• What were conditions really like at Stalingrad for both sides and how did they progress through the battle? What about the Eastern front in general?

• How bad was the destruction of the city in reality? What avout other sites of battle in the East (Berlin/Moscow etc)

• Was the 1 rifle between 2 men I've seen here and in the Original Call of Duty really practiced? Did they really have to cross the Volga with such lacking protection during daytime?

• How prevalent were marksmen during the battle?

• Why was Soviet armour support so lacking in the battle early on in the war?

• How prevalent were the infantry wave attacks shown in the opening segment of the film? Seems so wasteful.

• How prevalent were political officers in the Red army and what did they really do?

• What is with this fountain full of Russian bodies I keep seeing in every single portrayal of Stalingrad and why is it so famous?

I understand that it is unlikely someone could answer all these questions whilst adhering to the AH quality guidelines, so elaborations on any specific question or even answers to related questions that I didn't directly ask are welcome!

EDIT: I should have added this - I've done a fair bit of reading on WWII when I was younger and know the film is far from accurate, but it did remind me of things I am interested in knowing.

A friend is doing local history research and has found some genuinely interesting stuff. However, he left school at 16 and seems to have no idea of how to be discriminating with his sources

For example, he found a newspaper article from the 19thC which gives a different attribution for a locally well-known event. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that the newspaper might be wrong. Getting the wrong member of a group is the sort of thing local papers are notorious for

He's earnest and dedicated but undereducated for the task he has set himself and I wondered if there was a beginner's guide to sources, especially contemporary sources I can get him for Christmas and present with a merry cry of, "you like history, don't you."

This sounds patronising and isn't meant to. Like I say, he's found some interesting new stuff which he wants to self-publish, but he's going to get shot down if he isn't more critical. Mrs Blogg's round the corner has her mother's diary of the event but the local council archives disagree, so how to weigh the two? That's the sort of thing he needs.

[deleted]

Medieval Armies that employed horse archers seemed to have a lot of success in battle, The early Hungarians raided most of western europe, the turks defeated the byzantines at manzikert, and Saladine's crushing victory over the crusaders at Hattin. These battles are usually used to illustrate how the agile horse archers were able to say out of range of their slow, plodding oppenents and pepper them with arrows until they either routed or were run down. However, I read that the slower, more heavily armed Germans were able to defeat the Hungarians at lechfield and the crusaders and Byzantines were able to do the same and score many victories against Turkish and arab horse archers. How were the heavily armored slower armies able to to pin down and defeat armies using horse archers?

Did the soldier without horse follow the army by foot or did he go back home?

I would like to exclude The United States as much as possible, since I know more about the US than I do the rest of the world.

I guess another question would be, what changed and stayed the same for these coloured people from the 1780s to 1900.

In my opinion, as coloured people gained their freedom, and slavery was abolished. Coloured people were still looked down upon, as evidenced by the Berlin Conference/Scramble for Africa. What exactly changed though? Could a possible example be that, although blacks had their freedom, their individual rights were ignored - as evidenced by King Leopold II and his rule with the Congolese people?

I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to say, but hopefully it's clear.

When researching an essay for a previous class, I read that Qing Dynasty China had low taxation rates compared to European nations, while providing better public services. This sustained itself without democratic involvement of the people (voice) like would evolve in Europe, but instead

"Chinese emperors preferred to face the threat of exit than the constraints of voice, and they could do so because they did not face constant warfare." (From Before and Beyond Divergence)

I want to further dive into this topic, does anyone have recommendations for where I could find data on tax rates/civil unrest (which would be an indicator of exit) as well as potential books to read?

One of my classes involved reading and comparing On War and Art of War, and I was wondering if there was any reason to believe Clausewitz would have been familiar with Sun Tzu's Art of War. He never directly mentions it or even China as far as I can see, but might he have been aware of it at all? Had any Chinese literature been translated into European languages at that point? If not, when did that begin to occur?

I'm no expert, but I believe Hungary was conquered by the Huns and Turkey was conquered by the Turkic peoples. What other countries are named for their nomadic steppe conquerors and who are the tribes that conquered them?

I've been doing some online reading about the legends surrounding King Arthur and his knights, as well as some reading about medieval Welsh history. From my understanding, during the time period King Arthur may have actually been around (I think 6th century or so?), there would have been no "knights" in Wales or other British regions like Cornwall.

My question is, was there ever a period in Welsh medieval history when the landed gentry or aristocracy of Wales would have included men calling themselves knights? For example, would there be examples of "Sir Such-and-such the Welsh knight?" If so, why did they start calling themselves knights and adopting this system of identification/status? Would they have adopted it from the English?

I hope this question isn't too out of place here, but here goes: I've been playing around with Virtual Reality, and I would love to be able to visit historic places and moments like the Forum Romanum or Nineveh or the Acropolis (just to name a few) in their glory days. Or standing inside some important historical battles would also be great for educational purposes.

Yet, I haven't managed to find a community online that creates, collects and shares digital 3D models of historic places or scenes, which I might be able to use to create some basic VR experience.

Does anyone here know of such a community/website?

Apollonius was in Asia minor right where the early church was growing. Is there some consensus amongst historians of the influence he had on early Christianity?

I am interested about the development of nationalism in East Asia, specifically China, but am totally unfamiliar with non-European nationalism. Is it fair to categorize the nationalism of China as existing prior to the introduction of a European-style nationalism or do most historians find that nationalism as a phenomenon was 'developed' in 18th century Europe and then spread outwards in its forms by cultural contact?

Specifically, I am interested in the use of Chinese nationalism as an anti-colonial tool. Is it safe to describe Chinese nationalism as something existing prior to contact with Europeans and the challenge to China's view of itself as a center of power in East Asia, with Chinese nationalism adapting to combat this new threat?

Or is Chinese nationalism something more like German nationalism, which really gained impetus as a result of the Napoleonic occupation of German territories. That is, was Chinese nationalism as a modern force largely a reaction to and a result of European contact?

[deleted]

While browsing through the Wikipedia page for the Mixtec culture, I came across the following claim

The major Mixtec polity was Tututepec which rose to prominence in the 11th century under the leadership of Eight Deer Jaguar Claw - the only Mixtec king to ever unite the Highland and Lowland polities into a single state.

Is that claim accurate? Were there geographical or social factors that made unifying Mixtec polities difficult?

I understand that "Narcos" is a show and things will be exaggerated for the show. I was wondering if there are any crazy liberties taken by the show.

In this context, I'm simply ignoring the Soviet front and focusing more on the German and Czech side of the Polish border.

About washing clothes. Before modern dyes most colors would not have been color fast. Yet clothing had to be cleaned at least occasionally. I realize that layering garments would have permitted washing like colors together and that sashes, lace, and other ornamentation could be removed and resewn after cleaning. Paintings of medieval peasants show colorful but monochromatic clothing. But what of, for example, the beautiful designs of Japanese kimonos or the embroidered (?) dalmatics of Theodora's attendants in the famous Ravenna mosaic? In the absence of dry cleaning how were these items washed?

What would chairs, bedding, and cookware look like?