1. Was it immediately after the end of the war that this developed or was it a gradual long term process? And why did it happen?

2. And how much resistance was there to this idea in Austrian Society? Or was it adopted wholesale?

I was doing some random research and found out that, 'according to legend' William beat his future wife, Matilda, into submission, when she refused to marry him initially. Some other versions state he found her on her horse and pulled her down into the mud by her hair. I find this difficult to believe. Is there any truth to it?

I take it there were colonists during the English Civil War and the Commonwealth under Parliament & Cromwell. Was there fighting? Did they back one side, or just stay neutral and accept the result?

How did they poop? Could they stand up, up there? Or did they occasionally come down?

I am writing an essay on it and having a hard time finding sources or actual information to work with. By Irregular tactics I am referring to guerrilla warfare (if there was any) or scorched earth tactics. If there are any other tactics that can be considered irregular or out of the common back then just tell me. Thanks in advance

I was reading up about how a First Folio of Shakespeare's works was sold in 1664 for £24, and I was wondering what that would be worth today when adjusted for inflation. Any ideas?

Where does the name derive from?

I need a reference on this for my thesis, hence I am asking you if there are any good articles on how radio transitioned to TV, and more or less can give me some foundation for my statement.

Lieutenant Maurice Dease was the first recipient of the Victoria Cross in WWI, having died in command of a machine-gun crew of the 4th Royal Fusiliers on the very first day of combat.

As the Royal Fusiliers is an infantry battalion, would he officially be an "Infantry Officer", or would his official role be "Machine-gun Officer" in the infantry?

I'm super into genealogy and have a lot of relatives in the midwest. They were mostly farmers. Many of them married people who lived 20-50 or even 100 miles away. Considering there were no cars, how did they hook up? Pre Civil War it seems they tended to marry people who lived closer and even in the same towns or other family members.

Could one not, while taking in the context of the time, imagine that Christianity, at it's birth, could have been considered a sect of Judaism? Was it not Jews who converted? From what I understand (and I'm not as well versed as I'd like to be) those who did not convert, chose not to because Jesus did not resemble the Messiah they wanted. Did those Jews that did convert just completely ditch the Torah? Did early Christians not incorporate their Jewish traditions? I'm just really damn curious about early, early Christianity.

I know this is probably the sort of question that can't really be answered, but it's just too sad for me to imagine that there isn't some long lost cave where these works exist.

I was reading a bit about lustrace in Czechoslovakia, Solidarity in Poland (and Jaruzelski's trial), and the removal of the Stasi from power in East Germany, and realized I don't know much about what happened in the other countries (i.e. Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, etc.). What happened to people who were part of the secret police of these other states, or who were communist officials?

Were they kept from holding future positions? Were they put in jail?

I know it's a broad question, but I'm hoping someone can give me a basic idea :).

Hello friends, I am somewhat aware of how wrong all the various Middle Ages concepts (or rather myths) like the 'right of the first night', role of the church, 'dark ages', feudalism and so on are portrayed in popular (or outright wrong) history.

But my question is this - why is that?

It seems to me that no other part of the past (perhaps with the exception of popular depictions of Germany in WW2) is plagued by so many troublesome and wrong interpretations passed off as common knowledge or history as the Middle Ages.

Is it the result of 'just bad research'? Or perhaps some sort of secular Enlightenment anti-religious reaction? Maybe just a really unfortunate series of wrong or half-right conclusions by various, unrelated historians over the course of several centuries? Or quite the opposite, an actually concerted, thought out effort of a select few individuals at some sort of historical revisionism?

When I was a kid, I got really into reading the books by Stephen Ambrose. They were all about WWII, and usually from an American pov. This was before the plagiarism scandal was widely known. Now, looking back, it seems that most people are pretty heavily critical of Ambrose. He kinda rode the wave of of the patriotism that accompanied the 50th anniversary of D-day. But specifically what did he get wrong?

Are they classics solely because they are female and were rediscovered by the masses during the sexual revolution or is it from merit alone?