Hello all! I'm looking to do some research for a friend concerning Spanish-Ottoman relations from the 15th to 17th centuries. It's a little beyond my particular field (medieval Iberian history), so I was wondering if anyone had some decent overview sources that I could use as a jumping off point. Thanks for any help!

Edit: Spelling; I'm on mobile.

[deleted]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this. I have a sarcastic somewhat inappropriate sense of humor. Is this a modern culture thing or have there always been subversive comics?

Nothing racist, I'm just interested in the facts. I read somewhere that just after the Reconstruction, poor blacks went into prostitution and pimping to earn money. In the 1800s, early 1900s prostitution was legal - in fact the saloon was the center of town and entertainment frequented by sheriffs, mayors and city councilmen.

Was one of the reason prostitution became illegal because blacks got into prostitution, much like cannabis being illegal because Mexicans used cannabis?

I've been searching for a deeper back story on the origins of modern witchcraft, and this search appears to end with Margret Murray and theorists of the 19th century. I can understand debunking the notion that the witch trials were attempting to squelch an anti-christian occult presence. I can even understand that most pre-christian spirituality was either assimilated, acculturated or violently stamped out so that little evidence is left aside from caricatures passed down from generations. Now granted I have only just begun this search and have not had a chance to read the arguments debunking the existence of continuity between ancient and modern witchcraft, but given that anti-witchcraft laws were only lifted recently (some still exist), coupled with no small amount of Christocentrism, is there really nothing linking revivalist movements to something genuine?

I was wondering how exactly the government of France at the time (The National Constituent Assembly I believe), was able to get a majority of the people on board with the passage of the Civil Constitution and the Oath of the Clergy in a Catholic majority country that even had the Pope publicly decry both measures.

In my research, I can only find what the laws did and that the Pope opposed them, but I can't seem to find why such a majority catholic nation in a time of crisis would seemingly willingly risk excommunication/schism with the Papacy.

Basically, what I'm asking is how was the government able to get everyone on board with the passage of these two laws? Thanks!

[deleted]

I understand there was a purpose to meeting on the field of battle and marching forward, but were generals aware of alternative methods of battle, and did they utilize them?

I'm currently taking a history class, and am trying to argue that Albert's early conversion to Protestantism gave him an edge and led his house to becoming one of the most influential in European history. I just wanted to include this fact as a facet if it is true, but I'm not sure how the House of Hanover is related to the House of Hohenzollern. I do know that the King of England and King of Germany during WW1 were related, so I was wondering if this was true considering that fact.

Did they have wine? Rhum (I doubt that)?

A while back I learned that even after the rule of Augustus and the foundation of the Empire, the citizens of Rome continued to call it and consider it a continuation of the Republic, and that the separation between the two is a modern invention.

However, lately I've also been reading on the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire and now I'm wondering if they still considered themselves to be the 'Roman Republic' rather than a proper empire? Or were any notions of preserving the Republic gone by the time of the Dominate?

The Revolutionary war is often, at least in America, portrayed as an underdog story. How true was this?

[deleted]

I've taken my fare share of business and economics classes and I'm sick and tired of wondering how many people a widget factory should employ. Especially that smug look all professors seem to generate when they propose the imaginary factory they are planning will produce widgets.

So when did the concept of the widget get invented, and how did it become some popular? Have economics classes ever built a different fake commodity?

[deleted]

I've heard that there are several inaccuracies in the movie braveheart, the French princess was never there, prima nocte wasn't a thing, the battle was supposed to have a bridge, etc. Is there anyone here familiar with the movie who can give me a general list of things they got right and things they got wrong ?

Did longshanks really summon all the Scottish lords to peace talks and then execute them?

Did Wallace really scream freedom upon his death?

Did Wallace really kill some treacherous Scottish lords ?

Was Wallace's wife really killed by the English ?

Did the English really outlaw bagpipes?

Who was William Wallace, what did he do, what did he want, is there anything about him that makes him worthy of being a cultural hero, or was he just a ruthless barbarian? And yes, I know most cultural heroes were ruthless barbarians in some way or another.

I know copyright as we think of today didn't really exist until the industrial revolution, but what I'm getting at is say there's a Duke with a coat of arms involving a lion and bow & arrow, and in a neighboring province a new family head assumed the title of Duke and their coat of arms is visually very similar to the other Duke's.

Was this an issue that needed to be addressed? Would the Dukes just ignore it? Come together to compromise on a look? Ask the king to weigh in on the matter?