For example politic science is now it's own 'science', instead of being considered philosophy.

I'm sorry if this question stinks of ignorance, but it seems to me that political philosophy and political science are practically the same thing, albeit with some sociology added to the political science side of things.

I'm mostly interested in it's cultural and political state.

I would also appreciate it if you could recommend any further readings about it. Thanks!

Like Henry V in 1415, Edward landed in Normandy in 1346 with the intent to conquer. However, although Jonathan Sumption explains that Edward soon abandoned the idea. Although he went on the take many important Norman towns, such as Caen -- and ultimately win a great victory at Crécy and take Calais, he was unable able to institute a permanent occupation. Three generations later, Henry V succeeded in taking Harfleur in 1415 and defeating the French at Agincourt. In 1417 he returned, landing in the same area that Edward III had 71 years before, and was able to conquer all of Normandy by 1420. What made this possible? Was it a change in military strategy? Developments in England's financial and political structures? The disarray of the French due to the Armagnac-Burgundian civil war?

Thanks in advance for any and all responses!!

First, I am sorry that this is a broad question, but I don't know enough about the subject to narrow down my question.

Recently I read the book 1848: A Year of Revolutions by Mike Rapport, and now I'm reading Sarum: The Novel of England by Edward Rutherford.

While reading these two books I realized that even though I majored in History, I only have an understanding of modern Europe and it is centered on whatever Britain was involved in at the time. In the 1848 book there are several chapters about eastern Europe and I want to know more about all of the different nationalities and from where they came. For example, the book discusses Slovaks, Czech, Serbs, Croats, Magyars, Romanians, Saxon, and Prussians and other Germanic people.

In Sarum, the book starts in England before Stone Henge is built and continues on with the different people that come from the continent to England up until modern times. This made me realize that I don't know anything about the migration and evolution of the different people of Europe. Who where the Anglo-Saxons, Franks, and other early European people. What other groups were there? Where did they come from? What other groups evolve from these people? I understand that this covers a very long period of time and that it extends to a time where there might not be a lot of information, but I'm very curious. Do you have any resources or books that you recommend so that I can start learning more about the first peoples of Europe and how they evolved to become all of these different nationalities with different cultures and languages that appear in modern History?

What I really want is to set a better Historical foundation for myself. I am aware that this is a gigantically large period of History, but any direction would be helpful. I looked at the Book List but there didn't seem to be any books that describe what I want and the Popular Questions list didn't provide anywhere for me to start learning on my own.

x-post with AskHistory

I realise that this would have much to do with the guns available. When did the tank become about destroying other tanks? Im curious about the evolution of armour strategy and tactics. I realise quite a lot would have to do with the second world war. How much of this evolution came out of the Experimental Mechanised Force?

I just found out it was Mediolanum (Ancient Site of Milan), and later Ravenna.

By traditional, I mean the system like it is now, so funded with the people's taxes. There has probably been vigilante groups for a long time, but when was this refined to a strict order similar to the police of today.

Just watched a mini-series about Wellingtons campaign in the penninsula and basically soldiers were portrayed as absolutely brutal. Being very interested in history I already read a bit about the time and the conflict, but for some reason never looked at this question. I am aware that the rules of war were quite different from ours today and that the concept of moral&violence was a different one.

What i am looking for is information about what would in their own society and time have been serious crimes. What was the normal/accepted behaviour of individual soldiers towards civilians of either allied oder enemy nationality? How was rape perceived or the killing of children and babies? Was there a noteable difference between the armies of the countries involved? Or maybe even between regiments, commanders, type of troops (dragoons, rifles, line, hussars...)?

While I know they were quite powerful during certain parts of this time frame I'm having a conversation with my friend who contends that they were THE world/European power during certain fragments of this period.

Like Mongolians, Kazakh, Tibetans

I have been reading the account of William of Rurbruck who traveled to Karakorum as a missionary in the mid 1200s and held audience with Mongke Khan. However, while reading his account it seems terribly ones-sided, in almost every account he gives of the people he meets (e.g. the 'Saracens" in court, the Mongolian women) he tends to just give his detail on how he feels he is perceived. Is there any good primary accounts about how the Mongols at this time really perceived the West and missionaries?

I've read his wiki page and it claims there is no evidence. Also claims there was someone with the same name from Cooperstown around the same time. What do we know about the invention of America's pastime?

Does anyone have any information regarding what regiment the operational panzerbefehlswagen VK4501 Porche Tiger served with?

So far I've been able to dig up technical specifications and it's operating number (150013), but no joy concerning regiment.

Many thanks

Just reading today about the discovery of the Causeway of the Great Pyramids and the question came to mind... Did people not recognize the significance of historical context in the past? Of course things like war, conquering plunderers, thieves, etc, would get in the way of preservation of significant artifacts, maps, etc, over time, but did people recognize that hundreds (even thousands) of years later these discoveries or mysteries would be pondered my their fellow man?

In above example, would there be someone who said, "these Pyramids are a pretty big deal... We should keep decent records of everything about them for future generations"?

We know that the Christianization of Scandinavia happened until 12th century but for how long did the Asatruar beliefs stay alive among the people? Were there always small groups of people who worshipped the old gods or did it come back as neo-paganism when the poetic Edda became popular?