I often hear a great deal about how wasteful and frivolous the 'Death Star' and 'Super-Star Destroyer' were from any reasonable economic viewpoint while a major civil war is going on. However, as an Imperial General, I noticed that in no situation would Imperial High Command approve projects without ensuring that they had both sufficient resources for completion and an actual military need. For instance, the Executor-class Star Dreadnought revolutionized fleet tactics by providing a flagship for the many Imperial fleets that required a mobile base, while also providing a new weapon of war that could single-handedly take on Rebel forces or subjugate an entire sector. Why have post-war historians slandered these projects?

During the Second Age of Arda, the Dark Lord Sauron famously gifted seven of the Rings of Power to the seven clans of Dwarves. Now, we all know what happened from there; the Rings inflamed the greed of the Dwarven kings, and were at the center of the seven great Dwarf-hoards. Gold attracts dragons, and disaster after disaster for the Dwarves followed that.

My question is this. Such a vast accumulation of wealth by the Dwarf kings must have been the most ostentation display of wealth inequality in history. Were there many benefits to the Dwarven commoners? Why did they tolerate such accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, with (as far as I've heard) no grumblings of revolution?

I realize that Licona's text wasn't quite the paradigm shift that, say, Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" was, but I found it interesting because it at least purported to address the entire body of evidence concerning the "resurrection hypothesis," and it was very recent when I first started being curious about evidence for Christianity. Here's the thing, though -- being religious, I'm super biased in favor of Licona. So I don't really trust myself to go through and say "yes, he treated the Pauline letters fairly." I also just don't have the grounding in the field that I'd like.

My question here isn't about the conclusions themselves, his acceptance of the possibility of miracles, or his treatment of the alternate hypotheses advanced. Instead I'm just really curious about whether Licona did a hack job on the historical sources he used, and whether he misrepresented the "historical bedrock." I looked for scholarly reviews of it, and could only find a few, and those reviewers were generally theologians rather than historians. Can anyone help me?

When we watch things like Stargate, there's the assumption or public perception that the military takes jurisdiction over such discoveries and handles first contact... even before hostilities have begun (after they've begun, there's no question).

I guess, part of the problem is that there are few to no unexplored things which might constitute an "expedition", however, let me expand it to include archeological discovery and the like. Are there modern real-world examples of the military injecting themselves between a scientific goal or discovery and the scientists or explorers or archeologists? Cases where the military actually leads the charge and controls the program?

If the military has taken over something, is that abnormal enough to indicate something of significance or is it something routine throughout history?

What is the history of Iran and its use/desire of nuclear capabilities? Can someone please point me in the right direction to do further research? It seems that most articles I find regarding this subject are heavily biased in one way or another. I've read that the west gave Iran the infrastructure for the establishment and proliferation of nuclear capabilities, but I've also read that Iran wants weapons to nuke Israel. If no other nations in the middle east have nuclear capabilities (besides claims that Israel does), why does Iran want them so bad? Are they worried of the threat of Israel? Do they want to use nuclear technology for things other than nuclear weapons? I know this is somewhat a matter of believing what Iran claims so it's not really a black and white issue, but I just want to see the facts of the matter.

What do time travelling historians have to say about this?

It seems to me that doing so would have prevented the War, and the Air Nomad genocide

Also, based on what has occurred when other societies have been conquered, what would the role of humans be as a conquered people? I.e. Would they be killed, enslaved, etc...

Sorry for the double post today, but I'm currently writing two papers and need some excellent insight on certain eras in history. I've looked all over the place and have absolutely zero sources, primary or secondary, on the history of the role of the dire wolf in the Stark family's history. As a last-ditch effort I've decided to take my question to the historians of reddit! So, in you expert opinions, can you guys give me a description of the dire wolf's role in the history of the Stark family? Have dire wolves always been in the North? What battles did the ancient Starks use dire wolves in? How did dire wolves change the course of Stark history and why is a dire wolf on their family sigil? If anyone could answer these questions, or even one of them, I will be incredibly thankful. Again, apologies for the double post, but I'm trying to figure out all sorts of things today.

Edit: Autocorrect doesn't understand the lore of Westeros, apparently.

According to several sources, during the early days of Voldemort's rule, Potter freed several muggle-borns who were about to be deported. He had them flee the country, before he escaped to hide in the countryside. This raises two questions:

1. Why didn't Potter escape Britain?
2. Why was their no outside intervention to save Britain? During the reign of Gellert Grindelwald, the wizard world organized a counter invasion that led to his overthrow. Why not in this case?

Was it for mineral resources? If my knowledge about the Southern Continent is correct, there are no coal mines or oil fields there.

Admiral Demetrius Zaarin's mid-war coup against Emperor Palpatine was planned around a strike against Imperial TIE Defender manufacture facilities. This suggests that the Admiral thought the weapons platform was single-handedly capable of winning the war. Was it? Would widespread Defender use have changed the result of the Battle of Endor?

Though it's viewed as a major turning point in Essosi and even Westerosi history, I haven't been able to find a reliable source that conclusively answers this question. Is there no historical consensus on the matter?

It seems to me that there's no direct evidence of his crimes and what little evidence there is has a logical explanation. He was able to keep death tolls on Terok Nor to a minimum, and his alleged comfort girls were treated very well compared to the Bajorans on the planet. Most of this seems like Bajoran and Federation propaganda bolstered by him and Benjamin Sisko not quite getting along.

Specifically, did violent anti-Muggle sentiments erupt in the UK at any point before the rise of Voldemort? It seems as if the early Death Eaters had preexisting anti-Muggle biases which would cause them to sympathize with Grindelwald. His lack of influence in Britain has historically been attributed to his fear of Dumbledore, but that was his personal discretion. After his defeat in 1945 his community of followers would presumably have turned into more of a leaderless grassroots movement that would spring up wherever it found sympathizers. Or is this a misinterpretation?

If not, was there a specific reason anti-Muggle Britons kept their prejudices from turning violent until Voldemort?

As for the rest of Europe, did Grindelwald's crimes induce backlash against the magical supremacy movement? Or were there lingering biases against Muggles?

What we actually know:

• They met for a ceasefire at Edinburgh

• Twenty four hours later, every Red Court vampire was dead.

What are the prevailing historical ideas about why the war ended, and what happened to the Red Court?

I for one have grown tired of throwing out my old books to buy a new set every time some Anti-Monitor, imprisoned god, or quantum AI steps up to bat. I can barely keep up with the changes made to history on a regular basis and sometimes I feel like historians are just winging as they go along.

EDIT: Follow up question: how do the numbers compare to the deaths of other species during the Battle of Korriban, and other comparable espionage missions?