According to the gospels he's the worst, but was there any political motives or rational reasoning for Judas to "betray" Jesus? Are there any non-religious accounts of who Judas was and what he was trying to do?

One thing that has always bugged me about everything I've read about the early 19th century independence wars in Latin America is that none that I've found really seems to go into too much detail about how and where arms are procured. There are exceptions, like Haiti furnishing Bolivar with arms at one point (though it doesn't explain where the Haitians got them), and obvious answers in some cases, such as the Spanish bringing their arms with them from Europe or having them shipped.

My question is, where did most of the independence armies get their rifles, swords, and cannons? Some were probably just guns they had around the house or in some captured munitions store, but they should have had to buy more shot, more gun powder, cannonballs, etc. To my knowledge there wasn't really enough weapons making knowhow and infrastructure in Latin America at the time to make military grade muskets, cannon, and other military supplies. Or am I mistaken about that?

In the much later case of Cuba, donations and purchases made and smuggled into Cuba by private interests despite official prohibitions on any assistance during the 10 Years War or second independence war.

I'm particularly curious if it was the British or the Americans who were the primary intermediary for arms sales to the independence armies.

Thanks!

(Taking advantage of this week's theme)

Also including the Vermilion Bird in this, which (as I understand it) originated as a separate creature but is often lumped with the fenghuang in particular.

I've recently been fascinated by the phoenix myth, and have been very curious about similar myths (birds associated with fire/luck/immortality/rebirth etc.) from outside Western-influenced culture. Was there any significant cross-cultural contact involving these myths before "modern times" (admittedly fluid...generally meaning pre-significant Western contact, but let's say 1750 for a cut-off date)? Was there any particular reason(s) "phoenix" became the conventional translation for 鳳凰? How did this conflation influence modern interpretations of the creatures?

I know this seems like rambling now, but oh well.

I'm having trouble reconciling a couple of observations about the Roman Catholic Church and education.

First Observation. During the latter part of the period in which the Catholic Church dominated much of Europe, the great cities of the Islamic world were where people went to study under world-class scholars. The western world's preeminence in higher education seems to date from the Protestant Reformation. The serious intellectual advancement of western culture seems to have begun around that time as well.

A reasonable tentative conclusion would be that catholicism is a poor foundation for excellence in education and other intellectual endeavors.

Second Observation. The Catholic Church, as we know it today, is heavily into education, and seems to be quite good at it. For example, any number of Jesuit-run universities are highly regarded. And I have heard from residents of more than one third-world country that, where they come from, you go to the local schools if you're in favor of whatever sectarian bias they have, but if you just want a good education, then the catholic schools are the place to be.

So, how do I reconcile these two? Is my analysis of history off-base? If not, has there been some significant change in the way the Catholic Church approaches education since the Reformation? And if so, what kind of change was this, and what drove it?

I achieved a 2:1 and I'm really dissapointed because my average has been brought down by 1 exam that went wrong (got like half the marks I did in all my others ones). So I feel pretty dissapointed.

I wanted to do an MA and PhD in Modern History. Should I bother with a 2:1 or will I only get onto crappy courses? How important is extra curiccular stuff, can that make up the difference between me and another candidate with a first?

I'd love to do it for a carreer but even if a career in academic history isn't possible I'd still like to do postgrad anyway.

Basically how crap is a 2:1 and can/should I do postgrad stuff with it?

I see this assertion thrown around a lot and I can't find a reliable source to tell me how true it is. I don't doubt that it happened, but if it did what was the extent?

EDIT: thanks for the great responses everyone, it's a very interesting topic and I really appreciate all the info as well as book suggestions

Throughout a lot of Roman and early Medieval history Antioch seems like it was a very important city. What happened to it that made it not recognized in modern times?

Or was the term developed later for a style in America that happened to coincide with the Victorian Era in the UK?

Why did Germany chose to attack USSR even when they had the non-agression pact working between them? Can we call it a betrayal?

Excerpt from The Ego and Its Own:

The time [in which Jesus lived] was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for 'political intrigue', and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took the least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? [...] Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. [...] [Jesus] was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. [...] But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to [...]; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator...."

If people got excited about it, was it just the literate/upper class, or did common folk get excited as well? Did they celebrate? How?

I saw an advertisement for a program put on by the history channel a while ago, it showed a clip of the actor playing Benjamin Franklin, and he referred to Franklin as a womanizer. I have read extensively about Franklin and have found no such evidence to suggest he was a womanizer, although if I am not mistaken the following statements are true: he had relations with prostitutes in his early twenties before marriage which led to the birth of his first son, he was only in a common law marriage with his wife Deborah, and he carried on a private correspondence with a young girl, perhaps distant cousin(?), though the letters suggested his intense affections for her were due to her hinted-at virginity and rejection of Franklin's advances. In this case, I am referencing this definition from vocabulary.com: a womanizer "...is a man who always seems to have a new girlfriend, and who has no hesitation about starting up a new relationship before he's ended the last one. Usually, these relationships are sexual and don't last long." I can't seem to find anything, but it appears to me to be a commonly held belief. Thanks for any contributions!