In movies and literature surrounding 18th Century seafaring, Polynesian women seemed to be typically depicted as very welcoming to western men. Was there any truth to this or is this some sort of tall tale about a sexual paradise that sailors would pass on to each other?

Howdy,

I couldn't find anything via search, but my apologies if this has been asked before.

In all the photos and movies I can recall, WWI trenches all appear to run perpendicular to the enemies'.

1.) Why wouldn't spend some resources to dig some trenches that run towards the enemy?

2.) We're there ever any attempts to create tunnels? Reinforced with posts to prevent collapses, like a mineshaft.

If somebody acquired an extra suit (or pieces of) armor, would they be able to resell it as armor or just as scrap? If the former, what percentage of the armor's initial value would they get in return?

Related question: If armor were made to fit one individual's specifications, how hard would it be to resize it?

Given the recent news regarding his health, I think this may be a good topic to have. When he left office, as I understand it, he was fairly unpopular. Today, perhaps due in large part to his humanitarian and advocacy work, he is viewed quite fondly. How do historians view his presidency? And how do they view the impact of his work with the Carter Center? In particular I am curious whether his humanitarian work was something new and unusual for ex-presidents, and whether it may have impacted the rise of "celebrity activism".

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask but I figured it is a start. What are the best books covering the entire American Revolutionary War, from start to finish. I have seen 1776 by David McCullough is supposed to be very good. Is there another book or series that really delves in to the entire War?

Does our rate of increasing intelligence correspond directly with humanity's general appreciation for life? Or has every generation asked this same question? I just feel like if a "World War III" ever happens, there will never be another DDay.

The media and common conception is that they are are crazy cult, but what do actual historical records about their religion say?

We see hundreds of miles of torn up and destroyed countryside during the First World War. What was the process to repair the environment. Did much of it become usable again? Or was it just left alone?

I've been reading Contamine's War in the Middle Ages and there are a few times when he refers to some sort of siege weapon called a "cat" - something rare enough to warrant individual engines being given nicknames. But I've never seen such a weapon depicted or mentioned in movies or books.

What was a cat, how was it constructed and used, how effective were they, and how did people defend against them during sieges?

EDIT: I may have goofed in phrasing this question. There seems to be some thinking that Contamine is referring to "catapults" so let me quote the relevant section (note this book is originally in French, I have an English translation; bolds are mine):

[Preceding section largely about digging] ... above all, the use of approach engines, various types of counter-fortifications which allowed them to continue to injure the enemy while coming up to the walls. These tower-machines, belfries, or wooden castles, often depicted in manuscript illuminations, bore many names, some of which had been handed down from Antiquity or had been rediscovered in specialist Latin works: sows (truies), pent-houses (vinae), cats (chattes), weasels (belettes), sentry-boxes (guerites), cover ways, cats' castles {Footnote here: "Vineas et catos versatiles que sunt machine belliche, says John of Garland in his Dictionary"}. Sheltering archers, knights and crossbowmen, the majority of these engines could be placed on wheels or rollers to be pushed close to the opposing walls by the dozens and dozens of labourers. Smaller ones were erected on carts. At the siege of Beaucaire by Simon de Montfort in 1216, the crusaders' leader had carpenters construct a 'castle and a cat' (castel e gata) out of wood and iron but also from leather, this latter material being employed without a doubt to protect the engine against risk of burning. The contraption was stationed between the ramparts and the ditches, right up against the wall, and it was guarded day and night. Two years later at the siege of Toulouse the same Simon de Montfort employed another cat which the Song of the Albigensian Crusade describes as a redoubtable monster sheltering 400 knights and 150 archers and fearing neither trebuchets, stone-throwers (petrariae) or rocks because of the iron and steel used to bind its different parts together - the platform, sides, beams, cross-pieces, doors and roof. When he was besieging Damietta during the Seventh Crusade, Louis IX 'had two belfreys made which were called cats' castles for there were two castles in front of the cats and two houses behind the castles to protect those who mounted watch against the attacks of Saracen engines.

So in this section, I get the basic outline of what it is, but not really what it does besides house a lot of soldiers. And the terminology is confusing because in one description it insinuates a "cat" is just another name for one of the "tower-machines," but the Damietta account seems to suggest it was a specific thing.

In case the title wasn't clear, what do people in the south or southern textbooks use to justify calling what we call the Civil War the war of Northern Aggression?

If memory serves, the Ottomans besieged Vienna when Haydn was alive. Popular sources also indicate that ostensibly "Turkish" culture influenced fashion and taste in Mozart's time. These two developments must have been a few decades apart at most. So why the positive fascination with a dangerous enemy? Was it during a detente? Simply more contact? Preparing for the conquerors?

There's a persistent story that during the Albigensian Crusade when the crusaders were besieging a town that contained a population of both heretics and Christians, the knights asked the Abbot how they should tell who was a heretic and who was Christian. Amalric supposedly replied: "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own".

Did he really? And what is a good book on the Albigensian Crusade generally?

Was everyone given an equal share? Was it used only by the governing body at first? I'm curious about the transition from bartering to the use of currency and whether introducing currency disrupted the class systems of the time.

As an aside, with the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage and everyone pointing out how the United States is behind relative to Europe, I would like to point out that gay marriage United Kingdom (unless I am misunderstanding/misinterpreting wikipedia) only fully legalized gay marriage starting March 13th 2014, and that Germany has not fully legalized Gay Marriage (only Civil Unions) as of now so, I wouldn't say America is to far behind on that issue.

However, that being said, it does seem America has generally been behind ( I know this is sort of a subjective term, but bare with me please) on social/political issues relative to Europe, and even other parts of the world sometimes with issues such as healthcare for example. In fact there are a few issues the United States is extremely behind on, such as paid maternity leave.

So was there any time America was collectively very progressive on a certain issue relative to Europe or the world in general?

A common trope is that during the dark ages hardly anyone outside of the clergy could read, including people as influential as kings such as Charlemagne. While I realize a lot of the common beliefs about the dark ages, including its name, are the result of a pro Roman bias, it got me wondering about literacy levels before, during, and after the Roman Empire.

And to intercept the inevitable "but the Roman Empire was alive and well in the Eastern half of the Empire for a thousand years after the Western half fell", answers comparing the two halves after the fall of the Western half are just as welcome.