It seems like the Normans roamed all around and established kingdoms - sometimes briefly, sometimes permanently - in a variety of culturally, geographically and linguistically distinct areas. In England and Normandy, they established themselves permanently. Around the same time, however, they attacked and conquered Southern Italy. Were these one people? Would they have considered themselves Norman? I know nationalistic identity didn't generally exist in the early middle ages, but what made one "Norman"?

Portugal is right there, surrounded by Spain. Thank you.

From my understanding, most civil wars today are a bit of a chaos of many different factions and militias and armed groups, even if there are two or three major sides. Was the American civil war entirely one organized army vs. another, or were there other armed groups that took advantage of the fighting for their own ends?

Specifically, what was the first time somebody attempted to bring together representatives of all known nation states (where reasonably practicable in terms of logistics and development), without prejudice, for a single cause - be that political, sporting, trade or leisure?

For example, the Hanseatic League was an early attempt to direct trade among multiple states, so could be considered international, but does not meet the terms of this question because it did not attempt to include all known states.

Hi Y'all!

I'm ABD in my PhD in cultural anthropology where I'm working with Haitian Vodou practitioners in Haiti and the diaspora. As part of my comprehensive exams and dissertation research I've read up quite a lot on the African diaspora in the Caribbean obviously with a focus on Haiti and religious practices. I'm happy to chat about the revolution, how Vodou has changed/adapted within Haiti, general Haitian history, and larger discussions of African diasporas in Caribbean.

I also spent some time in the Maya Deren archives so if anyone wants to know about her journal entries while in Haiti and her discussions with Joseph Campbell regarding her research I'm happy to share!

My MA thesis was on Vodou in New Orleans so I'm also happy to chat about Marie Laveau, the connections between Haiti & NOLA, and African traditions in Louisiana.

Please note that while I'm happy to talk at length about Vodou I am not here to give religious or spiritual advice.

EDIT: Thanks everyone! I have to go pick up the little one from daycare. But I will try to get to some of the remaining questions tonight and tomorrow. This was fun and I hope to continue the conversation!

I've heard it said that the Japanese used some sort of iron sand to create their swords, and that the iron sand is terrible for making actual weapons. Why then didn't they buy the swords/metals off the Europeans?

I was assigned a research paper and I decided to write about the Underground Railroad. I feel like history books don't really the the topic justice because they simply gloss over the fact that using the railroad came with so much risk, physical and emotional trauma that many slaves didn't even try. I really don't know where to start though. I really wanna dive in and see what it was really like to be a slave. What were the real risks? What type of emotional trauma did slaves describe having? Once escaped, how does on go about daily life in the north? How are bounty hunter dealt with? Any links or documentaries would be appreciated.

Was it too difficult to carve? Was it considered "improper"? Is it even a fact at all, I mean it's true for the statues I can recall but I am no expert on antiquity art. I just read this statement in some article and it got me curious.

I was listening to Dan Carlin's podcast and he describes how the German forces were miles from Paris as they pursued French and British forces during the great retreat. But instead of marching into Paris, they tried to go around it from the east and exposed their flank to the French army in Paris. He does not explain why they did this. Can you?

It was a very common weapon in Ancient and even Medieval times but Im curious about the Weapons Effectiveness in a time where pretty much everyone had a shield and some light armor like Leather that would have provided some protection against flying rocks.

How "Deadly" was the Sling and its Missiles? Was the purpose to inflict casualties with withering fire? Perhaps skirmish,slow down or Distract an opposing group?

I Imagine many skirmishers, either as individuals or in groups would pelt an enemy force yards away and have their missiles similar bounce off a row of Shields, maybe strike a helmet if its lucky.

Curious as to what governments have been more shaped by these politics in relatively modern times (late 1700's-present day) and how it shows. Ex. were the Russian Czars influenced when they ruled their monarchy? Was Bismarck's realpolitik an offspring of Roman politics?

Using their body (bodysurfing) or any other object, if that matters.

I've read about how Wilson sent American troops to Russia in 1918 and 1920, in support of the White Russian faction in East Russia (Vladivostok). Are there any good first person accounts of troops who were there? What were the casualties?