I've heard the starvation and conditions there were not fully explained by problems with confederate logistics- were the prisoners starved intentionally? Was the goal of sending officers to Andersonville to have them die?

The image I have of trials where people were judged on being witches or not is mainly shaped by mainstream media. In many TV shows and films these trials are often like:" either she drowns, when we put heavy stones on her and throw her in the lake or she survives and she is a witch". Either outcome meant death.

That is what I am wondering. Once you were on trial, were you basically already sentenced to death?

I'm looking for books or journal articles or any good verifiable information about real ancient seafarers, however I'm afraid of getting some kind of historical-conspiracy-theory-Atlantis-proving-garbage (which is the only stuff I've been able to find). I remember reading on here a post on this sub that referred to a specific book, but I've since forgotten both the book and the post in which it was mentioned. Any help would be greatly appreciated! (Even good terms to put into the Google and my university library website.)

I was once told by an artist that he had read an account in which da Vinci said that the greatest pieces of art that he (da Vinci) had ever seen were those that were revealed in the water stains of interior walls and ceilings of old buildings. Did he really say this? Where can it be found?

In the latest season of Game of Thrones Stannis attempts to march onto Winterfell despite the incoming winter. On this march he is attacked by Ramsey Bolton and "20 good men", who sneak into his camp and set fire to his food stores and kill/release his horses.

Now, obviously the show is a dramatization and fiction, but is there any real life examples of guerrila attacks like this being executed to destroy food shelters? Is this just an invention of the show, or were such tactics relatively common? And finally, is it even feasible for a small band of 20 men to sneak into a military camp to cause the sabotage?

Since its fiction it is difficult to draw an exact time period this question relates to, but I would estimate at around 1300-1500 being most accurate.

One of the big obstacles to Hitler's rise to power had been President Hindenburg. However, with the German parliament unable to function properly due to no one party gaining enough support to govern Hindenburg had agreed to make Hitler the Chancellor of Germany which was done in January of 1933. In early 1933 the German parliament and Hindenburg passed the Enabling Act (which would expire after 4 years), which allowed the NSDAP and Hitler to issue laws by decree, and all other political parties were banned.

At this point Hitler was pretty much a dictator. The only person who still stood in his way was Hindenburg who still had the power to fire Hitler. However, in August of 1934 Hindenburg died and Hitler then took the position of Head of State along with his position as Head of Government.

What I want to know though is what plans, ideas, etc did Hindenburg have to keep Hitler, who he despised, in check, or if the need arose to toss out of government?

Notably was it the work of overall shifts in the world economy, the inadequacy of labour and conservative politicians or the large influence of unions as some seem to say? Obviously the answer isn't definitively one or the other but is there any one factor that contributed more than any other?

And a follow up question: To what extent did Thatcher fix these problems? Was it primarily because of her that the economy eventually improved or would it have recovered regardless of who was in power?

I've always just assumed it was a joint effort to cool down tensions, but some things I've read have somewhat suggested (without saying it), that the wall was built by the DDR.

Is this true, and if so, did the allied have any knowledge of what was happening until it was already being built?

And if the allied didn't know, how did they react to armed DDR-people shooting westernes who tried to enter the DDR?

I thought I had found something along these lines when I discovered Internal Collonialism, but it ended up being something about unequal development today - or maybe I'm wrong?

But I'm wondering why the distinction's made between gradually expanding authority over formally independant groups and places (Brittanny, Aquitaine, Burgundy...) is differ from Collonialism. Isn't it more or less the same? I'm also familliar with the debate on whether or not Roman expansion can be called Collonialism and though I' still don't really understand the arguement against it, would this expansion of Nation-State-Authority be more similar to that then?

I just picked random examples. But really, any authority expanding (Persia, the Mughals, Prussia into Kleindeutschland, Russia, Modern Italy and so on vs. any collonial regimes would work.) Only in the cases of say Haiti or Australia, can I see a big difference, replacing the population and never with the intent to incorporate them (unlike the Spanish in Mexico who honored Aztec nobility...) and populated a mostly empty region (at least I believe the Australian coasts were mostly empty, though I am aware of the tragedies acted against the natives but... There were also genocidal events in Europe, weren't there?)

So... Can't William the conquerer be called a Collonist, or any other successful invader?

Taking example of Amin Maalouf's 'The Crusades Through Arab Eyes', do wyou guys know texts depicting Rome from the Barbarians' eyes, or what Rome represented for them? In short, does an alternate version of the Fall of Rome exist?

I've read a lot about Allied and Axis troops in Europe, as well as US troops in the Asia-Pacific region, but I don't have much of an idea about how Japanese soldiers lived during the war. There doesn't seem to be that much info about it out there.

Why does the Gregorian calendar start and end in the middle of winter? Was it an auspicious time in some way? Winter hardly seems like a joyous time to herald in a new beginning.

From my understanding of history, the China/Japan situation was a bit like some current, modern day events - the international community reacted strongly, and then proceeded to sit back and watch, sending in some "investigators".

However, given Germany's close ties to both China and Japan, why did they not negotiate a cease-fire? Wouldn't it have been a good diplomatic move for Hitler to gain international support as a broker for peace in order to get more of his demands met?

When did they start, when did they fall out of favor?

Were they popular outside of the rich?

It is supposedly Australia's greatest mystery. What the hell happened to it?

I can't find any source. Spanish would be an extra for me.

Would everyone have understood the length and variety of the Bible? Did people know about the contradictions and moral imperfections? As it was distributed, was there controversy, or did people accept it for what it was?