Not saying Hitler was a good guy but he didn't kill as many as Stalin so...?

Movies always portray dinosaurs as killing machines that did nothing but hunt and eat, and I'm wondering if that's accurate. Did they just stake out their territory when they didn't need food or water? Would they seek out a potential mate?

To maybe expand on my question, I'm fairly familiar with the transition from the late Middle Ages to the early Renaissance in England as far as the push from the noble/burger classes against the power of the king (the Magna Carta et al.) -- and that this type of struggle didn't take place in France until the Fronde of the 17th century, but what was it about centralized, absolute monarchy that drove "creativity"? How is it that states that appear nominally "more free" were less expressive artistically?

France was, and to some extent still is, considered a primary mover in areas of cuisine, fashion, poetry, intellectual thought, and general artistic expression, but compared to the Low Countries and England, individual expression was sharply and strongly curtailed. Was the patronage system intrinsically better than a free society for producing art and culture?

So, my girlfriend is an art student and she's starting a research project based on the tridimensional representations of human motion. As some may know, art history in general tends to be focused only in the European culture. Long story short, we're having trouble looking for references on the subject.

She mainly works with clay (ceramics), but any kind of human figure that is designed so it can move will be taken as a reference. If possible, it would be nice to have a contextual reference too (like a book about that culture).

If some of you could help with some books, visual references, or even a "where do we start from" kind of reference, it would be highly appreciated :)

I've been reading a few books on WWI, and right now I'm almost done with Peacemakers, by Margaret McMillan. She does point out that the Allies put a lot of thought and energy about how big the indemnity for Germany should be, and in whether or not they could pay it. But I don't recall specific discusison of inflation.

Was economic theory advanced enough at the time that German hyperinflation was a predicted consequence? Did the Allies think the Germans would try to go that route to pay off the debt?

So far as modern figures are concerned, he is Philippe Pétain, not Philip Pétain.

But a French king from the Middle Ages would be known as, say, Philip VI.

Thomas Aquinas, not Tommaso d'Aquino. Etc, etc.

Why the discrepancy?

Why does English-language historiography anglicize the names of European medieval people, or to be more specific, of West Europeans (the Poles, Russians, etc. keep their native names, even though many of them have English equivalents, e.g. Henryk = Henry, Ivan = John, etc)?

As a current atheist, I would like to debate them on this claim that the five books of Moses of the Pentateuch in its current form is the original text dating back to Mount Sinai in 1313 BCE. Did the current language even exist in that time? Is there specific evidence I can show them that disputes that assertion?

edit To clarify, I do not accept the claim that the torah was god given, i am trying to determine the age of the language in its current form.

What were the major institutional and cultural obstacles? What policies did Julian implement? How effective were they?

It struck me recently that there is a rather large gap in my knowledge of the chivalric class. Can anyone point me towards a source for (or provide an example of) the dimensions of a twelfth- or thirteenth-century aristocratic manor. I'm not particularly fussy about the socio-economic profile of the inhabitants, but I'd prefer to restrict this to Germany, France, and England.

What made Anthony the Great more significant than Paul of Thebes? As I understand it, it was Paul who became the first Christian hermit who went into seclusion to lead an ascetic life heeding the words of Jesus about the rich young man who sold his possessions and gave to the poor.

Can anyone please explain why Anthony is more "famous" and historically significant than Paul?

Also, if we know, what were the first birthdays like? Were they only for royalty? Did people always give gifts for them? Any other interesting things about the history of birthdays?

Was it an actual lack of news, or were there other things going on which led to this? I have heard the claim that there was Royal news which they had been asked not to report on and instead of reporting on other things they did this and I would like to know the validity of it.

I could never understand this. These were 3 of America's most important Allies, and America 'betrayed' them in favour of Nasser, who to my understanding was closer to the Soviets than the US. Why would America want to aid a Soviet Ally fight three of its own Allies, on of which is Israel, crucial to American influence in the middle east. Any help would be appreciated

Specifically the nineteenth dynasty.

Words are okay, pictures would be better. Looking for accurate (as possible).

If there's a better sub for this, I'd be happy to take my business elsewhere.

Thanks!