[deleted]

German unification has always been a little confusing to me. Mainly around the point of the smaller/weaker states essentially giving up some amount of sovereignty to Prussia. I know Prussia was the most powerful German state at this point and there were fears of popular revolutions bringing down the various German monarchies, but it is a rare thing in history for a sovereign state to willingly surrender power to another state. I would love a book or article recommendation on this topic.

One of my university modules last year involved looking at 1066 and it was emphasised that William the Bastard was given authorisation to carry the Papal banner with him during his invasion of England, showing that he had the support of the Papacy behind him.

However, I've recently been reading Thomas Asbridge's book "The Crusades" and in the introduction he details that until the time of Pope Gregory VII, any fighting and war by Christians was highly frowned upon, and that despite the idea of "just" wars (noted as being solely ones of defence) any and all bloodshed was, regardless, incredibly sinful.

So why did Pope Alexander II support William in his venture despite the fact that it was obviously going to result in bloodshed between Christians? I read somewhere (though I can't remember where) that it was potentially because English Christianity didn't adhere as closely to Catholic doctrine as the rest of Western Europe and so the Pope wanted to reaffirm Catholic power in the area. Was this the case?

Spanish-speaking Latin America seems to have received many less African slaves comparing to Brazil or the US. Did Spanish elites use native forces as slaves? Was this allowed/encouraged by the central administration in Spain? What did the catholic church think about it?

During the Great Leap Forward

Obvious events would be the emergence of the Catholic Church, but apart from this how accepted or taboo has homosexuality been? You often hear that civilisations like the Greeks and Romans treated homosexuality like it was perfectly normal.

From the little I've read about it, the rejection seems to mainly be for ideological reasons. As in it didn't fit with the communist ideas of equality and was too "bourgeois". Surely this can't be the whole story? Was there some economic benefit to it or some other type of pragmatic reasoning behind the rejection?

What kind of rituals did they have?

What kind of "demons" were there? What kind of gods were there?

Did they have any intitiation-rituals? example: the ritual that turns a boy into a man.

Did they have any interesting myths?

Any rites?

Any magic, sorcery?

It seems to have started with the Ming Dynasty where our histories start to refer to Chinese Emperors as said in the title. What is the significance of this?

Every Emperor from the Ming dynasty has this naming template, but the first three sovereigns from the Qing Dynasty do not follow the same pattern as every other Emperor in the Qing Dynasty. Why is that?

Considering the Romans used to control parts of Britain, a long long time before these events, did the Byzantines take particular interest in the origin and history of these foreign mercenaries? Was there any significant informational or cultural exchange?

I don't believe that anyone can reign supreme all by himself. Who were the key players in the inner circle of Augustus, who helped him to seemingly reign supreme and what did Augusts did for them in return?

Bayezid and Murad both did it, I'm sure others did as well. I remember it being a huge deal historically that Diocletian retired in Rome, so what's the situation in the Ottoman Empire? I've heard it suggested that this was to ensure a peaceful transition of power, but the Ottomans had peaceful transitions of power when sultans held on until their deaths, so I'm really not sure about this.

In media they're essentially all portrayed as evil- the one exception I can think of is Benedict Cumberbatch in 12 years a slave. But are there any others?

Edit: any time in history is fine.

How were shore bombardments carried out during the Age of Sail? Did the ships sail past firing, merely haul up their sails, coast to a stop and begin firing, or did they anchor before opening fire?

If they anchored, then how did the ships anchor themselves so that their guns face the shore?

I'd like to find some materials that give the story of the Germans, from migrations from Scandinavia until the sack of Rome. I know that's pretty broad, but honestly, I'd like to learn up on them in that date range.

When I watch videos or read about late medieval armor (1300-1500), many of them talk about the different helmets ( armets, bascinets, sallets, etc.). I can identify all these ones, but sometimes the author or video maker also makes comments on the region, saying that they can find similarities in the armor attributed to a certain region/power/kingdom/country of Europe (e.g. a Milanese variation pigfaced bascinet visor in comparison to an English one). While I can see different variations from antique helmets when I search them up, I can't tell what is what. Is there any info on how to identify certain helmets from certain regions? Any fashions specific from one kingdom to another's visors/shape/etc. in helmets? Are there any good books that you would recommend that would help identify these?

Was any native american technology more advanced than warfare from a european or asian perspective?

I've been reading that Denmark only 'recolonized' in the 16th century - with all contact with Greenland stopping a few centuries prior. What happened to the Norse population that had lived there since the 9th century? Did it die out/intermingle with the Inuit? Are there any stories or legends about these norsemen by the Inuit?