At some point between the period I mostly study (up to 1830 or so) and the First World War, military establishments started treating what we'd now call "staff work" as a valued professional discipline. At what point did staff colleges, studying battles and battlefields, and planning for future engagements become routinized, and who led that charge? In my head, I've always associated it with the Prussian military, but I have no particular actual knowledge to explain why I think that.

Let's say I've just been accused of theft.

How is all of this going to go down? What was their justice system like? What form of trial will I face? Do I get a lawyer?

I've heard of taxes being paid in grain, but were barter economies the de facto system used by most of the lower class in the middle ages? Would it be possible for a lower-class individual to save what coinage they did come across to improve their station, perhaps across generations?

I was having a discussion with a friend about the concept of mythology vs. history, and ideas of what history actually means differing throughout cultures.

I remember reading somewhere (where exactly I forgot, hence my post) that some tribal societies assimilated Christian or other Western ideas into their mythologies, and subsequently presented them as having always been part of their tradition/mythology. So you'd have this or that character showing up in their mythology from a certain date in recorded, retracable history, but the way they relate their myths, they make it sound as if this has been their knowledge from the beginning of time.

If you need me to elaborate, let me know, and thank you !

Bismark manipulated the French into entering the war, but the French were certainly eager for it. Given France's desire to enter the war, how did they feel after they had lost so quickly?

I just finished William Shirer's Berlin Diary after having read his Rise And Fall of The Third Reich a few years ago, which I also recommend (with the small asterisk of both being history recorded by a journalist without any claims of omniscience and an unapologetic product of his time and culture.)

Diary covers 1934 to 1941, so Poland is conquered and divided. France is getting divided up into occupied and Vichy France, England's navy has been somewhat busy, but otherwise hasn't done much, Italy is going out of its way to appear relevant, and Hitler and Stalin are allies.

9/10 of the book are about what you would expect, just with much more detail.

Here's the novel part where I would like your opinions - Shirer asserts that France's shameful military performance is due to three forces.

(1) Their enlisted men are seduced by communism, and thus have their orders from Stalin to not fight.

(2) the elite leadership is secretly, or brazenly fascist. They do not want German hegemony, but a Franco-like strong man of their own is more desirable than democratic chaos. Hence, they do not try that hard to fight.

(3) General cultural decay has infected all of French culture - a general lack of 'moral fiber' that Johnny American has is missing, hence the half-hearted capacity for self defense.

I can see #3 as Shirer being snarky or frustrated and not thinking deeply enough, but #1 and 2 have, to use one of his favorite phrases, "the ring of truth."

EDIT - I just remembered one more rather big deal. He characterized French generals as mostly elderly, having no new thoughts in 20 years, and taking no physical exercise in 10 years. They were sort of professors emeriti of their military. German generals were a sharp contrast - in their 40's or 50's, largely physically fit, and generally very capable. Also a true generalization? I'm thinking their experience in Czechoslovakia and Poland vs. French experience 25 years in the past would make this true, as a generalization?

Specifically: pre- and immediately post-1917, the interwar period, WWII, and during the fall of Communism.

I'm reading Oren's Six Days of War and came across the passage:

Thus, the proposed union of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq was presented first and foremost as a coalition against Israel because, for all their ideological affinity, there was no other issue on which all three could agree. Egypt portrayed its intervention in Yemen as a “step in the process of getting rid of Zionism,” while the Jordan-Saudi (Ta’if) pact opposing that intervention signified “a front against Jewish aggression.” - p. 18

I'm not able to find either of his references for his quotes, and I don't get what the war had to do with Zionism at all, let alone how both sides (the Jordan-Saudis, and the Egyptians) could each see their position as opposing Zionism. Maybe I'm reading this wrong?

It seems like this would have been noticed by people way before recorded history and at every period and place in the world. Objects in pools of water, peering through clear glass, looking at your own legs while standing in a clear stream, having to spear your fish by aiming a bit differently than they seem to be- how would people from different times and places have made sense of this extremely common but strange phenomenon?

Heard that on an episode of BBC's Ancient Rome miniseries, but the narrator didn't give an explanation.

I know there's a plethora of sources about Islamic life, but what would be a great sources to show him (historical or modern) to show that Islam isn't what the sensationalist news stories play the faith out to be. I'm looking for more modern sources, but historical ones would suffice as well. I would show him the books I have about al-Andalus but they seem irrelevant. Any recommendations to help before he goes off the deep end?

I should also note that I'm definitely not looking for anti-Israel sources (although I would love to see one which analyzes the history of Israel dispassionately), and I'm definitely not looking for a debate in the comments. Just sources to show him which prove that Islamic views towards Israel aren't as black and white as he believes.

When I ask this question, I'm thinking specifically of Ptolemy, Pliny, Pompey, and Antony but I'm sure there are many others. Why were these names all changed to end in "Y" in English, when they don't even have the same endings in their original languages? With the exception of Antonius and Plinius I suppose.