It always annoys how we always hear about great Franks like Charlemagne, but little about the Kingdom of the Franks in itself. How was the social hierarchy ? How did the internal provinces and lordships work ? Was there some kind of frankish identity ? the economy etc.

I was reading about the Green Knight (of King Arthur fame) and learned that the poet alleged that the Brits are descendants of the Trojans. The Romans famously also claimed to be descendants of the Trojans. Knowing of the Trojans only as the losers in the Trojan war, I have to ask, why did the Romans/Brits and likely others try to trace their origin to the Trojans?

I am interested in what early religions believed about angels, but I want to avoid woowoo or NewAge books on angels; I would like to read a scholarly text with references to original texts. Do you have any suggestions, please?

I recently finished Amir Alexander's Proof!: How the World Became Geometrical, which I expected to be a social history of geometry, and instead I got a lot of only rather tangentially related French military history and exact descriptions of garden layouts. His central argument is that the hierarchical, timeless, and universal structures of Euclidean geometry provided the perfect spatial metaphor for European monarchs and governments seeking to set up unyielding and unchallengeable hierarchical political structures, and so they employed geometrical designs in art and architecture to express that sentiment.

Ironically for a book with that title, however, he seems rather light on primary sources. His chapters on the development of perspective in Italian Renaissance art and the symbolism incorporated into Italian architecture of the period (as well as the later chapter on Washington, DC) are well-supported by references to contemporary sources, but as soon as the discussion moves to fifteenth-century and later France, he does not appear to cite primary sources explicitly connecting the ideas of Euclidean geometry and hierarchies of political power until Louis XIV's reign. Rather, he seems to project motives onto the intervening French kings based on his own extensive aesthetic interpretation of the gardens they had built at their palaces. I'm not seeing anything contemporary that explicitly connects the geometrical aesthetic of gardens of the period to ideas about political organization in the minds of decision-makers.

Rather, the sources he does quote from link the geometrical aesthetic explicitly to imitations of nature. I see nothing to distinguish Alexander's interpretation of the meaning behind the spread of that style from the more quotidian interpretation that Charles IX saw a style of garden he liked and associated with the privileged culture of the Italians, copied that style at home for the cultural caché, and subsequent kings carried on with that style of garden and palace layout because it was (arbitrarily) popular; its subsequent spread would then be attributable to imitation of the French monarch by other crowned heads and nobles in Europe, no metaphors for political or social organization necessary. Are there more primary sources that back up Alexander's argument, or is he out on a limb?

If they did spend time as peasants and commoners how did their experience mark them and their rule?

Im not asking for people who rose through the class structure or illegitimate children, but rather for people who were born into the line of succession.

Similarly people who were banished to another court don't count

What was the estimated population of Turkic tribes that moved into Anatolia starting 1071AD? In comparison, what was the Greek population there at that time?

I got into an argument with a friend about swords in warfare scenarios; he claims that swords were literally never used with very few exceptions, I on the other hand claim that whilst swords weren't used as commonly as other battlefield weapons they were still used in serious combat throughout most of history.

Some of my arguments were things like the greatsword (zweihander, spadone, nodatchi and other similar swords), and historical accounts like Götz the iron hand (something I had on mind at the moment) who apparently was using a sword during the siege that he lost his hand.

His arguments were that a sword would be as good as useless against armour and the short reach would be a huge detriment against pole arms and cavalry.

So could anyone give some outside expertise on the subject?

I know that retiarius fought with tridents and nets in gladiatorial combat, but have there been other significant examples of spears being used with sidearms other than shields?

What’s a great textbook(s) for learning world history from beginning to as close as it can get to out time? And what about for world religions? TIA!

I know that chariots were a serious force and at least mentioned as being used up to the late Roman era and into late antiquity, but why did they become phased out of military fighting into the medieval era? Was there some ground breaking invention or change in military doctrine that caused the chariot to become obsolete?

I'm reading up on the Thirty Years War and in 1618 or 19 the Ottomans sultan promised "significant aid" to Bohemia and the Protestants. I also know the Turks sent troops to Transylvania when Transylvania joined the war. What ever came of that army and the promised aid to the Protestants? Was that army it? I know the Turks had to deal with Poland and Persia around that time.

I am a historian currently writing my dissertation. For a multitude of reasons I'm not considering R1 schools. I enjoy teaching quite a bit but my program is geared toward research. I would like to know what the workload is like teaching at a liberal arts or community college.

I had recently been told that the tale of Spartacus and his rebellion was a very popular story for children in the USSR, and was framed in school as a moral struggle in line with contemporary* Soviet values.

Given that there would have been a context for analyzing slave rebellions in education - was the Haitian Revolution part of the regular curriculum? It seems like the topic was skipped over quite a bit in the western world - I only learned the details about it from Mike Duncan.

*anecdote from friend's Babushka - 1960's rural Smolensk

I feel like when it comes to reading about Christianity we have the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in Roman Judea, and then we have the medieval Catholic and orthodox church, but it's hard to find anything about the period in between, ie Christianity transitioning from a small movement in Judea immediately after Jesus's death, through spreading throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, becoming the official religion of the Roman empire and the Council of Nicaea and finally being spread to all the various pagan peoples migrating in and around the declining Roman empire, not to mention the other Christian movements that ultimately died out. Does anyone have any suggestions for how I might educate myself on this period? In particular I'm looking for a book that's :

• Written from a neutral or academic perspective.

• describes the history of Christianity from 0-~1000 ad in a generally broad or introductory way

• goes into the social/cultural currents as well as the actual key events

• goes into how Christian practice or theology changed over time.

• Goes into the various other branches and heresies, such as Arianism, gnosticismn or nestorianism, and not just Nicene Christianity.

I'd appreciate any suggestions any of you might have! If you have any book recommendations that might address a smaller specific part of this quite broad topic that would also be helpful, thanks.

Did people create P&L statements by hand on graph paper? How were charts and other data visualizations created and presented? How were financial models done? Was "big data" even a thing?

Who found it first. Is it romans? Did romans used them in real battles? If the Romans used it in battles what kind of strategy they operate?

A friend of mine says that Nixon pursued the drug war deliberately against black Americans. Is this (or a version of it) true? What are confirmed elements of the story, versus mere accusations or insinuations?