I'm not necessarily looking for a short article or anecdote but if they're valid, interesting sources I'll gladly read them. I'm looking more for an actual book with primary sources etc. the whole shebang. Thank you.

And furthermore, where did this raid happen?

here's what I know so far: The book comes from Bohemia (now Czech Republic) in the medieval period, it was written by monks. it is the largest medieval manuscript in the world

Legend has it that a monk was about to be immured for breaking monastic vows but promised that if they let him go he would write a manuscript containing all human knowledge (at least for the time, anyway) He doubted he could accomplish the task so he prayed to Lucifer, he offered Lucifer his soul if Lucifer helped him complete the manuscript. A picture of Lucifer is on one of the pages and is the earliest known picture of a demon (at least in Christianity). Obviously nobody knows whether he made the deal with Lucifer or not because nobody knows whether Lucifer exists or not, but it is estimated that the book would take 5 years of nonstop writing with just one scribe.

I know that the Codex contains a version of the Latin Bible but it does not include the books Acts or Revelations. There were many illustrations in gold,red,blue,yellow and green. the most famous part of the book is the picture of the devil which created the modern image of satan (even thought he picture was of Lucifer the prince of Pride while Satan is the Prince of Wrath)

Aside from this, what was in the manuscript? this only covered half of the document. So what other information was in the book?

And please don't make this into a debate of wether on not god is real. I honestly don't care whether or not God is real and it is unrelated to this question.

I feel like the whole time period of 1700-1820 is grouped in my head as the same in terms of armies (all tight-knitted musketry) and I'm curious to know the main developments and changes.

I was interested in reading some of Mr. Ambrose's books, but a quick Google brought up a lot about inaccuracies and plagiarism. Does this discredit his work, or is it still worth reading (and trusting) despite all this? Many thanks in advance.

How was any information about it conveyed, and what was conveyed? I would guess that fairly shortly afterwards everyone was aware of the fact that an attempted coup had taken place (although I am curious how soon afterwards), but what about the fallout, the people hunted down and so on-- was the world aware of that and what was going on?

So I'm planning on teaching American history at the high school level after I graduate from university next year. I'm trying to start on my lesson plans now. Obviously, to go into a lot of depth more than one resource would be needed but I am looking for a comprehensive text book to base my lessons on and get a solid overview of American history, and then do further research from there. Ideally a college level textbook. While I am looking for a textbook that covers the whole of American History, recommendations of books/resources on specific topics are also welcome. And yes, I know that the school will have it's own textbook and I have looked at my states standards. But from my high school experience this wasn't enough and I want to cover a lot more than just the basic requirements. Thanks!

In my latin class, we watched a bbc documentary called "the last day of pompeii" and it mentioned a rescue mission sent from Rome, but how and who was notified and responsible for organising a response ? Generally, what was the reaction to what seems like an important city being completely wiped out in just one day ?

Title is pretty self-explainatory.

Learning in school that French Guiana was actually part of France, and not an independent nation, surprised me. How did this happen?

Is a lack of a violent rebellion the only reason that Guiana (and not Indochina or Algeria) is part of France today?

Looking towards their policies at face value, Johnson & Johnson seem as if they couldn't be more different. Am I missing something, or perhaps upon more analysis, are these two presidents alike in any other way?

Sorry for possible grammatical errors in title.

I am mostly asking about the Cossacks from the mid 16th to the mid 17th century but feel free to answer for other periods. I have read the Wikipedia entries but they are pretty vague on those questions:

1. What religion did they follow? Were they followers of orthodox Christianity or Catholics (or something else)?

2. What weapons and other equipment would a Cossack use at that time?

3. Wikipedia says the article 'history of the Cossacks' is outdated. Do you have any idea what aspects in there could be misconceptions?

Thanks in advance :)

Native American tribes have a rich culture of mask making and storytelling using these masks. Is it possible that these brought upon the advent of "Masquerade Balls"? If not, how did they start.

A revisionist counter-narrative has sprung up in many places on the internet, propelled in part by the popularity of games like Warthunder. The B-17, this narrative goes, was no more rugged, survivable, or defensible than any other bomber. Photographs, reports, and veterans' accounts of B-17s landing with exceptional battle damage are dismissed as rare exceptions. Instead, the loss rates of B-17s in late 1943 are used to prove the vulnerability of the platform to fighters of all stripes.

I find this difficult to square with an interview I conducted earlier this year with a surviving B-17 pilot. While admittedly no expert on WW2 aircraft design, I know enough to ask interesting questions; and this gentleman spoke convincingly of the ability of his B-17 to repeatedly absorb hits, aided at least in part by a design philosophy that stressed redundancy - ie, two cables leading to the rudder, so that if one was severed, the co-pilot could still fly.

I was looking up my small town in the Domesday book. In the Essex P-S section of domesdaybook.co.uk (where my town is) there's Plesingho.

'Bernard from Count Eustace; the king claims from Humphrey 'Goldenbollocks'.

I have multiple questions...so many questions. A load of questions about poor old Humphrey actually. I first read it as Goldilocks which confused me even more.

First- from Count Eustace? From his land? Estate? Supported by Count Eustace?

Also, Humphrey Goldenbollocks. Presumably a nickname. Now, as it's nearly a thousand years old, I'm sure no one will know. But was it used pretty much as a surname? Would similar nicknames be used as surnames? So would I say 'I am Nigel, son of Humphrey Goldenbollocks'? Or 'I am Nigel, son of Goldenbollocks Humphrey' or maybe 'I am Nigel, son of Humphrey the Goldenbollocks'. By the way it is written down so seriously, it must have been a known nickname, despite it being rather crude. Are there any other examples of similar names?

And how common were these nicknames? I haven't been reading too closely as I was just trying to scroll down but I can't remember seeing many nicknames. So no 'Bernard the Fisher' type names, although I saw an 'Otto the Goldsmith' and a couple more, but all job related. but then it wouldn't exactly be memorable. Goldenbollocks almost sounds like a compliment...were many compliments sexually based? If it had been a negative name (I don't know, leadbollocks) would the name still have been written in? What could he have done to stop being called Leadbollocks? Would it have been considered something illegal, like slander, libel, etc or just accepted as a joke?

Sorry for asking a lot, it just caught my interest. Another thing I wondered, although there are lots and lots of beehives mentioned, only one entry out of the hundred or so I've looked through mention honey (they said sesters of honey). Was the stored honey in other villages just overlooked? Why the difference in reporting?

(Also, funny note, I'm not posting anything about the village I'm in, but I did see a Frodo 'brother of Abbot Baldwin' which made me laugh).

I just find it awesome that this man I know barely nothing about living in a place twenty or so minutes from me will be immortalised for his testicles.