If you can maneuver around someone with speech alone regardless of the truthfulness to it is it seen as a positive? How widespread is this belief?

For example and correct me if im wrong but rather than being portrayed as a liar Odysseus is described as more cunning and is seen as a positive trait rather than a liar and negative.

Is there a common agreement among historians as to what happened to Edward V and his brother? Were they murdered by Richard III? Edward VII? Edit: Henry VII, not Edward.

Was it all rebellions? Or did the let the countries go free?

They dont really have much of a legitimate claim to the island so it would pretty much be conquest, what would have it meant for the Island and its people in the short and long term?

Would its 2k british citizens been deported? the Island repopulated with loyal argetines? Military Occupation?

Were they toe-to-toe? Or, already leaning to the Americans or, perhaps, Japan?

This came up in a conference about updating resumes (a student-driven initiative in my Uni) where someone said that History courses won't ever need updates because it teaches an unchangeable past. On that a young student Historian (sophomore I think) replied that it wasn't true because every history version also mirrors the time in which it is made. In further discussion he also said that later versions weren't necessarily better than older ones. Is that true? Isn't it so that historians can use the insights of previous versions and add new ones, making the newer version de facto better than older ones? If someone can illustrate how that works in layman terms that would be very kind.

I was just thinking about this after I finished my history final and can't place a finger on it now, my minds blank, maybe world War 1?

Was it a gradual transition from dry land to ice? Was it a steep wall?

Hello, I'm doing props for a play called "Kindatransport" about the movement of about 10,000 children from Nazi German to the UK - I've got most things ok, but I'm stuck on the pens... can you help? My Google-Fu is off.

1. What type of pen would the German officer have used? I originally assumed fountain pen but would that have been practical? Would rollerballs have made it that far from Paris?

2. What type of pen would the German woman have used? I assume fountain pen?

Many many thanks for all advice and pointers :D

I heard this somewhere, long ago, that hundreds of years ago, Norwegian (?) families would toss out their kids into the ocean from the shore and only the children that had strong wills to survive were collected by the parents and allowed to live. This resulted in the stereotypical tall and muscular 'Viking' population.

A lot of people speak of Joseph Smith as a fraud or conman.

They state so unequivocally, as if the falsity of a believe is evidence of someone lying.

Yet while I don't believe in Mormonism (or any religion), I recognise the difference between something not being true and something being a fraud. I don't assume the founders of all religions are conmen, even though I don't think their religions are true.

There is evidence that Smith may have worked as a conman earlier in life (although even this might be disputed - he could have genuinely believed in his divining etc.), but is it thought that his religion was fraudulent, that he didn't believe in what he was saying, that he knew it was false?