Were envoys sent to Scandinavia, and if that is true, what would be used to prove their intentions to the Scandinavians?

I understand that a lot of western Africa was controlled by France until the 1950s and 60s. Did they become Nazi controlled also, or did the German extent of control not reach that far?

Has there ever been a battle in which three armies met and all three wanted to kill each other? I've heard of three way wars but an individual battle?

When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, they pretty much declare on the UK. Wouldn't that mean that all NATO members would have to rush to the UK's aid, and declare war on Argentina, was there any talks among NATO nations to get involved in that conflict? And since the UK was pretty much by themselves during that war, would the same thing be true for France if French Guiana was ever invaded?

During the Hundred Years War England had many chances to take over France but did not. There was a time when the English destroyed the French army and slew nearly all of the nobility. Another time when they captured the French King himself. They even had free reign in in the French Capital but wanted to do things traditionally instead of taking the French throne by force.

I just can't seem to understand why England and it's kings throughout the war did not just take and annex the whole of France. It seems like they were content with simply raiding and 'playing war'.

If I was king of England at the time then I'd of slain the French king and nobility then forcefully claim the whole of France, rename all French city and village names to English names, and setup my sons and family members as govenors of the newly annexed land.

Maybe I'm not looking at the full picture but I thought the point of war is to slay your enemies and take their land. Seems like England and France went to war but at the end of the day still recognized and respected each other's sovereignty.

And if so, are there any eyewitness accounts or descriptions from their point of view on what they saw?

Just what the title says. I'm wondering how a 'normal' wild boar hunt would have proceeded, how dangerous it would have been, and whether the hunters were usually successful in killing their quarry.

Edit: To be more specific, suppose that I am a French noble during the 1400s.

I stumbled upon this article about soap and how long people have used it. Then one thing lead to another and I started investigating how soap was made. But almost all "recipes" that are "traditional" use lye as one component. Now lye has been available to purchase for a very long time, but this wasn't always the case and having looked into how lye is made it sounds a bit too advanced for just anyone to make. I can be wrong but it seems like that.

So what did they use to make soap without lye?

The diseases of the Old World (influenza, diptheria, smallpox, measles, etc) were introduced to the Americas with devastating effects. But were there any diseases brought from the New World to Europe, even if they had lesser impacts?

Hello everyone,

I am interested in hearing your thoughts in regards to this question? Is there any truth to this statement that the American Civil War was the first modern war?

Apologies for the pun, but there are a great deal of theoretical advantages to the ekranoplan. Why didn't it become more popular?

this is a question we have begun to ponder in my American History class, i personally believe that from where i stand that it should be, "The Enslavement of Africans caused Racism". looking for both sides of the argument, if possible.

I assume that the fact that sex leads to pregnancy and, eventually, birth was fairly well understood for a long time in our history as a sentient species. However, I wonder when we discovered the biological processes underlying conception? Was this fairly early on in humanity, or a more recent discovery? How did people figure it out? It seems like it would be difficult to directly observe.

Edit: Marked as NSFW, seemed like a good idea.

I wonder if there was any legislation related to this. I've heard about American soldiers needing to return their guns, or buy them back themselves, since the guns were government property, but what about their British counterparts?

This semester, I am enrolled in a Peoples of Southeast and East Asia anthropology class and my group is comparing the internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians. I myself am yonsei Japanese-Canadian and asked if we could examine the issue from the Canadian side. We are being asked to create a poster (That won't be printed this semester, but may be used in a student research celebration if it's good enough) based on our findings.

I've been desperately searching for a map of Japanese Canadian internment camps. There's plenty for the United States, of course, but I can't find particularly good ones for Canada. This may be a particularly specific question. If all else fails, I will load up ArcMap and try to make my own, but I would definitely prefer to see if any exist currently.

Beyond that, I'm looking for some good literature on the topic, particularly regarding the tensions that existed between Nikkei and other Canadians before World War II on the West Coast, as well as the demographic impact with Japanese Canadians being forced off of the West Coast. I have quite a bit of original research via my grandparents and associated individuals, but I am not so familiar with reliable scholarly/literary sources.

Most of us know that the British held lands across the world. How did they accomplish that?

?

I know that the early christian missionaries to the Germanic barbarian tribes were Arianians. But Niceanian Christianity doesn't seem to have taken any root among them.

Why was it that to the extent that the Germanic tribes were christian, they were Arianians?