there are lots of speculations and assertions (conspiracy theories?) out there about the Knights Templar digging under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem looking for religious relics, specifically the holy Grail.

Did the Knights Templar believe the holy Grail was an actual physical object that could be found? Did they ever look for it? did the Knights Templar conduct any kind of archaeological digs under the Temple Mount?

I've been doing a lot of genealogical research and found that most branches of my family arrived in the US from Europe in the late 1700s and then spent one generation on the east coast (NJ, VA, NC typically) then traveled in-land to TN, KY, MO between 1800-1820. I want to learn more about that process. Most of them seem to have been farmers who were too poor to have slaves/employees. Would they have been granted land in advance and known where they were going? If so, would they have had that information in Europe before they even came over? How big were the convoys, typically?

I'm particularly interested in finding some books on the subject if there are any. Thanks!

Sort of crosspost to /r/askreddit (but the thread didn't yield much).
How is it determined when an "age" has arrived? Are some "ages" established by a recognized standards-setting organization? Is there only one age at a time? Did the Atomic Age end when Sputnik heralded the Space Age?
Thanks!

I'm not sure how to phrase this question clearly. I guess for simplicity let's pretend power is some sort of thing that can be transmitted from person to person. Do kings and queens of England/UK have power because of their links to their ancestors? Or do they have it in their own right? For example, does Elizabeth II's legitimacy still derive from her heredity, or is it somehow a part of her now? I guess I'm wondering where the root of power is for the British: with the current monarch, or with the beginning of the dynasty?

I assume the answer will vary depending on the time period.

Thanks!

These days we have "organic" "free-range" "fair trade" "low carbon" etc. Was there ever say a "no slave" product? or a "no child labor" or something we wouldn't even think of.

Sorry for asking three questions in the title. But I wasn't able to find a lengthy amount of information online about this.

The relationship is, of course, pretty remarkable now. It is less than one hundred years since WW2 and Germans can live in harmony with say, the English.

How long did it take to get to this point? Was it pretty much instant after the toppling of the Nazis? Was it quick because everybody, no matter which side you fought on, was in the same boat (i.e. you were pretty much made to fight to your government?)

I assume that he would be referring to some risk Halsey toke in the Pacific world war 2 theater. Would him as a Soviet commander be more likely to view american historical commanders more unfavorably?

Just curious, watching Band of Brothers and it looks pretty brutal.

Looking at casualty figures for WW2, I can't help but notice the disparities in casualty figures.

It seems to me that the Japanese Army absolutely slaughtered the Chinese, and the Germans did the same to the Russians, despite being on the losing side of both conflicts. (arguable for the Japanese in China- they were still kicking in 1945 and were brought down elsewhere)

For example, the Russians won the Battle of Moscow despite taking likely up to 3 times as many casualties as the Germans. The Russians also lost more men in the Battle of Rhzev than the US lost in the entire war and lost more men captured at Kiev than the US lost in the entire war.

On the flip side, the Japanese were absolutely decimated by the US in most land battles. The only battle I can think of where the US lost more causalties besides the opening battles in the Phillipines and Guam, etc. was Iwo Jima, where the Japanese lost 20,000 KIA and the US lost 6800 KIA but had more total with wounded included, and that was a battle in which the US was attacking a fucking fortified volcano. For comparison, the US lost 12000 KIA at Okinawa, the Japanese, 108,000 KIA. This seems absurd to me.

Did the US Army/Marines really have that much of a tactical advantage over the Japanese? Same with the Germans vs. the Russians.

And the US/British captured a TON of Germans late war. Why was this? The Germans, at least in terms of armor, were tactically superior, and while American artillery and infantry may have leveled that up, I would have thought that the Germans would have done a lot better in NW Europe.

I understand that air superiority makes a difference, but really, these statistics shock me.

Anyone have solid explanations for these figures?

Did Richard I, Philip II and Frederick Barbarossa join the Third Crusade out of piety?

I don't understand the material reasons, as neither king controlled a realm with a sufficiently advanced power structure to allow them to control both their kingdoms in Western Europe and in Outremer. Any vassals placed in this region would be de facto independent rulers.

Was it in order to control the eastern trade routes,to maintain the fairs of Champagne?

At the same time they risked their positions at home and the English and the French even ended a war in order to join the Crusade.

So why did these kings join in person?

My philosophy teacher says that Plato was influenced by Hindu and Buddhist teachings, noting similarities such as belief in reincarnation, and returning to the form of the good and moksha.

However, this seems unlikely to me that Plato would have heard about Hinduism, because to my understanding India was a relatively alien place when Alexander arrived, years after Plato's death.

Is it possible that cultural and philosophical transmission through trade routes such as the silk road influenced Platonism?

I know this might sound a bit radical, but over the years I have been reading around on the subject of war crimes, collaboration with occupiers, etc.. and how the offenders and victims have been dealing with it.

What I've seen, so far, is that most countries do not, or poorly, admit what they have done and/or don't put a lot of effort in trying to keep their citizens informed, so that the past doesn't repeat.

I have not seen many accounts of this, other than the wave of guild that spread through a lot of post-WWII generation germans, even though... well, a lot of other countries have done a lot of crimes in a lot of places and occasions. For example, Austria collaborated quite happily with Nazi Germany, but was there any public regrets? I remember seeing a documentary saying that racism was still quite high. Another example would be France with the Collaborators, that was mostly ignored (there were a few trials for the Vichy leaders, I think, but nothing big) or how they mostly ignored what happened in Algeria, too. Or Japan with their ambiguous way of admitting but not really the horrors they did in China and the other occupied countries. Et caetera, et caetera.

My question is, is there any other country that has really done their "devoir de mémoire" (duty of remembrance? it's a french expression, I don't think it's been translated properly).

PS : I have gone through the FAQ and most upvoted posts in the sub, as well as a quick unsuccessful search. If the questions has been answered already, feel free to send me the link. Thanks in advance!

edit : word