I am wondering why they decided to go through Belgium instead of just looping around not involving the British?

I'm looking for historians who can speak fluently the following languages/dialects for a personal project. I have a few actors speaking some words, and I'm not sure if I caught the pronunciation correctly.

• Gothic
• Latin
• Middle-Irish
• Old High/Middle/Low German
• West Frisian
• Norse (Proto-norse, more specifically)
• Old Turkish
• Ossetian
• Burgundian

Thanks in advance.

"After a few days of fighting the consciousness slowly dawned on our soldiers that those Scotsmen were not like the ones we had seen described and caricatured in the comic papers and mentioned in the communiqués"

As the title states I have been researching Hitler's views of the British and came across this reference about the Scottish and was wondering if anyone has any ideas on what exactly it means?

If so how did they deal with the new different environment and adapt to a new enemy. Additionally that would suck. edit: specifically after German surrender and before Japanese surrender

I know the Trojan Horse would be considered a cited example of early special forces use. But, from what I've read that's mythos. Are there any real recorded examples of the use of unconventional warfare?

I had to wonder that and cant find the answer. Was it more expensive/harder to produce than mail? Did mail simply offer better protection? Or did the skill to make it just die out?

In older times, it seems like armies would come together in more or less one spot and fight it out.

Nowadays, it seems armies fight across a broad front in much lower concentration and only rarely fight large "field battles", and in a typically less predetermined fashion.

Why is this?

Some places say Otto I was the first emperor of HRE, but others say Charlemagne. I might just be misunderstanding though.

Full disclosure: The ultimate class of my undergraduate program is based on the concepts of memory and trauma in history. The goal of the course is to write a 20-25 page paper centering on these themes.

In light of the centenary this year, I have elected to write on the evolution of Anzac Day in the public memories of New Zealand and Australia from the inception of the holiday through the present. Specifically, I want to argue that Australia "commemorates" the holiday, while New Zealand typically "memorializes" it. I base this distinction of terms on the acknowledgement of the trauma of the original event, i.e. Australia's more boisterous, triumphalist activities surrounding the holiday ignore (to some extent) the sacrifices of the diggers, allowing a greater degree of celebration to infiltrate the national consciousness than is allowed in New Zealand.

While this is all well and good (or so it seems to me), I was hoping that I could read some theory pieces that address the distinction between these two processes that would help me contextualize the argument I'm making within the present historiography.

Additionally, if any specialists could point me towards sources dealing specifically with Anzac Day in Australia and New Zealand's public memory, I'd appreciate it. Currently, I'm looking into the works of Ken Inglis, Bill Gammage, and John Moses. Unfortunately, these are clearly focused on Australian perceptions of Anzac Day.

Thanks for any help given!

In Völsunga saga it is said that Volsung , grandchild of odin , is king in hunland . I dont get what is the connection between huns and the viking mythology . From this point many other questions rise ,because huns had interaction with the germanic tribes in central europe around 3rd & 4th century. Does that mean norse mythology decents from these eras?

I recently read the stories of Damaskinos of Athens, Chrystostomos of Zakynthos, Ioachim of Volos and others. All were bishops and all had everything to lose by helping the Jews, be it their own personal safety or that of their church and flock. Further, it seems like they were much further up the church hierarchy than the priests who helped the Jews in Poland, France and elsewhere.

Compared to Alexander or Hannibal, his military victories seem somewhat lackluster.

Watching Gladiator and wondered if there's a historical perspective as to why Russell Crowes character could be portrayed as being to obviously superior in 1-on-1 combat

Hello Historians,
I'm in need of your help! It seems to be quite difficult actually to find some sources that give a clear oversight of the different transitional periods of the kind of weapons during this Victorian era. I'm talking about the transition of flintlock to caplock to breech loader to bolt action rifles. When did armies have which type of weapon institutionalized. For example, I know that the British institutionalized the Lee Metford bolt action rifle in 1888 if I recall correctly. It would also be fun to give some side info on pistols/revolvers and the roles that weapons like the Henry rifle or the Winchester played in armies. Who here can help? Thanks in advance!