I was curious about how much is actually known for sure about this group. I know they lived in modern Ireland, built Stonehenge, and that's about it. My ex roommate who was a 'norse shaman' tried telling me stuff about them, but it all seemed to be fairy tales.

In Cole Porter's "Anything Goes" from the 1934 musical of the same name, the first verse goes like this:

Times have changed

And we've often rewound the clock

Since the Puritans got a shock

When they landed on Plymouth Rock

If today

Any shock they should try to stem

'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock

Plymouth Rock would land on them

This got me wondering, what was the historical understanding of the Puritans in the early 1930s, when this work was written? What shocking circumstance or event would have shocked "Puritans" on their arrival at Plymouth in 1620? What did Cole Porter mean? Finally, how have historical perspectives on the Pilgrims changed since the 1930s?

Why is she known also Elizabeth the second when Elizabeth the first was only English? Surely the name Elizabeth II doesn't make sense after the Act of Union and in the Commonwealth?

So I was watching "Last Days in Vietnam" recently on YouTube, and one comment made me curious about this. About 30,000 people were crammed onto boat fleeing Saigon and S. Vietnam in order to flee the country, and one of the American special forces advisers said he was confident at the time that all of the refugees would be executed by the NVA if they had told the refugees to go back.

While I understand that the NVA had, for example, executed 'American collaborators' in Hue City during the Tet Offensive, I'm curious about what we actually know about atrocities (if any) that were committed during the collapse and conquest of S. Vietnam.

It seems clear to me that the NVA didn't go through any sort of massive ethnic cleansing campaign, but they did create 're-education camps' which seemed to be similar to what China had during Mao's regime.

Modern Latin pronunciation is different to what it was in the past, and Octavian, to give an example, changed his name several times. Additionally, there are numerous different spellings of Roman names - is it Gaius Julius Caesar or Caius Julius Caesar? Based on this, if I was in Rome around this time, what would I call the protagonists of the era, and how would I pronounce them? How would it differ if I was, say, a friend of Caesar's and could talk to him informally, compared to if I had to address him formally like at a Senate meeting? Likewise, if I was discussing current affairs with someone, how would I refer to them?

On March 15, 44 B.C, Julius Caesar was killed on the floor of the senate shortly before he was to be crowned emperor. Still today, many people debate on whether the killing of Julius Caesar was just or not. I'm wondering if the senate was permitted by law to crown Caesar Emperor, because this seems like it would be a notable point in an argument towards the un-just side.

Are there any good, free newspaper archives with search tools? I specifically want newspapers from before the 20th century. I just love reading about events as they were percieved by the people living in the same time period, but who were not necessarily affected by them

It came into my head while I was reading.

Hey guys! My question is pretty self-explanatory. I'm interested in how the Nazi government treated the working class, what was the relationship like between labor, capital and the state during the years of nazi reign. Is there any monographs on it in English? If not, I'll be satisfied with anything you have for me. Thank you!

When was the Second World War known as such? I believe the Great War was known by that name during the war, but I've never worked out at what point WWII became WWII.

I know the Russians knew it as the Great Patriotic War.

I tried a search but I failed, sorry.

Do you know good articles, books and similar works about German economy during world war 2?

In particular I'm interested in how the production process was organized, how the resources were allocated, which major problems were recognized and which solutions were implemented, and similar topics (mostly organizational topics).

I read several times that the German economy was on the edge and therefore not able to provide, for example, not enough equipment for the army even in safe time like 1942, when allied bombing was not so effective. I wonder why.

Or the German economy was strained and thus not able to develop an aircraft engine of 1500kw of power, needed for proper long range bombers with big payload. Etc.

Many thanks.

I've been reading about the Albigensian Crusade quite a bit lately. It's interesting to see holy warfare initiated against other Europeans, as opposed to the blatant xenophobia of the Crusades that headed for the Holy Land.

In a political situation that seems reminiscent of a Game of Thrones subplot, the lord of Toulouse, Count Raymond VI, was quarreling with the church almost continuously, to the point of getting himself excommunicated over murdering a papal legate. (Actually, that sounds rather Borgia-esque, no?) He broke with the church for a short while and then agreed to great humiliation — a public scourging by the papal legate — in exchange for being returned to the favor of the Church, and incidentally not getting his lands invaded by the Crusader army that had formed at Lyon.

Given that Count Raymond was constantly in a series of civil skirmishes with his nephew and chief rival, Raymond-Roger Trencavel, viscount of Béziers and Albi, fighting over the lands held by their families, Count Raymond's capitulation to the church so soon before the Crusader army was drawn up at Lyon … must have made Trencavel quite nervous.

Trencavel attempted to negotiate with the abbot of Cîteaux, who was leading the army in his capacity as a Papal legate, who refused a meeting, it seems. Once he realized that this army was headed directly for his lands, and would not be dissuaded, with the blessing of his uncle and liege lord, Trencavel directed Béziers to close her gates and organize a defense, while he went on to direct the defense of Carcassonne, which was a bigger prize than Béziers.

The abbot of Cîteaux, Arnaud Amaury (spellings vary from source to source), who seems to be the acting leader of this army, gave an ultimatum to the bishop of Béziers, Renaud de Montpeyroux, to give over a little over two hundred of the citizens named as heretics. I'm not sure if Amaury was offering to spare the town the sacking if his requests were granted, but I assume that anyone who is making a request while accompanied by ten thousand armed men doesn't need to show the carrot, since you've already seen the stick.

The bishop gave these terms to the townsmen, who rejected them as many of the named heretics were town leaders.

In this time period, from what I've read, 40 days was the normal period of service for military personnel. The townsmen of Béziers had a very stout fortification and plenty of food and water, and believed they could easily hold out against 40 days of siege. At any rate, I do know from my reading that they expected only 40 days of siege, and felt they could handle it.

The bishop was very concerned, and asked fellow non-heretical Catholics to leave with him, but very few did. This was on 21 July, 1209.

On 22 July, 1209, it seems that a group of townsmen went on a sortie and picked a fight with "camp followers" of the army. The army hadn't even really started besieging them properly yet, it was still only the second day they'd been at Béziers.

When the townsmen started to take casualties, they promptly fled back into the gates of the town, and neglected the defensive positions they'd held. And possibly neglected to lock the gates, from what I can tell. They hid in a church, hoping for sanctuary.

The skirmishing group they were fighting entered Béziers … and so did everyone else. Slaughter began, not just of men of fighting age, but of everyone — the elderly, young children, mothers with babes.

It is sometime in this confusion that apparently, some of the knights with the crusading army asked about how they could find the heretics to kill them, implying by that question that they would spare the non-heretics. The abbot leading the army informed them, "Kill them all, for God will know his own." For a man of the cloth, he seems a bit severe.

Once the churches had been desecrated — churches that the Crusaders were fighting for, not heretical churches — by slaughtering everyone taking sanctuary in them, including clerics, apparently the mercenaries and the Crusader knights got in a fight over who got to keep the spoils.

The knights overcame the mercenaries and took their war booty.

So the mercenaries burnt down the town.

This entire encounter, from the initial sortie to the slaughter to the immolation of the town, happened in less than two days.

I am curious about a bunch of this. In the modern day, we'd consider this a war crime, no question. In their time, well, the Crusaders that took Jerusalem in 1099 were nearly as brutal, though it seems that they focused their efforts on Jews and Muslims.

Why was an abbot leading an army? Was there some sort of cut-out where he would be only responsible for the spiritual welfare of his people, and rely upon generals for actual warfare supervision? I know the Fourth Lateran, 6 years later, specifically forbade churchmen from leading armies. Was this one of the reasons?

Why would the townsmen, who had plenty of food and water, and were situated on a cliffside, make a sortie outside of the gates?

Where had the mercenaries come from? Were they Christian?

You know, there are a lot of war crimes and atrocities throughout history, but it seems unusual that warriors on behalf of religion would then freely and easily desecrate all of the sites of their faith, including the murder of their own priests and nuns.

Did Raymond VI benefit by endorsing the Crusade, and thus the attack on his vassal lands? It seems like it'd be very risky to endorse in any way an attack on the lands of even an enemy if they were your vassal lands — after all, armies aren't noted for their great deference and care when they start destroying things. Why wasn't he impressing service upon his vassals to create a unified defense?

Even though they were town leaders, wouldn't it have made sense to sacrifice 200 to save the other 7,000?

Who were the camp followers they would have tangled with?

While I understand the concept of sacking a besieged city and then burning it, as a reaction to any sort of resistance from the townsmen, this all seems … very odd. I feel like I'm missing something here.

What was the popular contemporary reaction to this? "They deserved it for sheltering heretics" or "They resisted a siege, what can you expect?" or "This is horrifying"?