What made this war that much different that it could topple that many empires in one war?

Heyup, So basically I've been wondering for a while about how Saxon inheritance worked in pre-Norman England.

At first it seemed to be standard Primogeniture, eldest son and all that. However it seems that the Witan not only had to confirm the King based on an election but also had the power to overrule the succession.

Upon the death of Edward the Confessor, based on mainland Primogeniture Edward the Æthling should have inherited, though William le Batard and Harald Hardrada also had fairly weak familial claims. Harold Godwinson was chosen by the people however and the Saxons seemed to believe him to be the legal King.

So it short, how does it work? Is it some form of Tanistry ie Scotland, where someone of Royal Blood is chosen by the people? Does that only occur when there is no direct heir? Does the Witan even expressly have that authority?

This is a pretty specific question but if anyone could lend a hand that'd be great!

Edit: Should say "what was."

It seems like our modern view is based solely on Al Qaeda and it's operations over the last 30 or so years. What was it like before that?

I know that after they gained power residents of Phnom Penh were forced from their homes to be incorporated into Pol Pot's agrarian-based utopia. But what happened to the country's capital during this period? Was it essentially a ghost city, being completely devoid of people, or were there some who were exempt from the forced exodus imposed by the khmer rouge?

I've been into a grand strategy history game called Europa Universalis 4 that takes place from the mid fourteen hundreds to the mid eighteen hundreds recently, and I couldn't help but notice that there were a lot of Muslim states in places I never thought of as Muslim (Such as the parts of Russia named in the title of this post). In this general time period, were Sunnis really this wide spread? What happened to them?

In the beginning of World War II, the German navy was able to interrupt the flow of British supplies with their u-boats, fairly successfully. The German army did lack however, large powerful ships that could take on the battleships and aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy. Therefore, Hitler devotes a large amount of money, time and men to build and staff two formidable battleships, previously named. These two battleships were state of the art and had seasoned crew members. However, Hitler sent the Bismarck up and around The Brtish Isles only to be destroyed in open waters after sinking The Hood. And the Tirpitz was sent to hide out in the Norweign fjords, until it was ultimately sunk before it had even really faced any British ships. So why did Hitler build and staff these battleships and then effectively just parade one around in the open waters till it gets sunk and then just have the other one hide out in the fjords until it was also sunk? Seems like an awful waste of time, money and men that could have been funneled into more u-boats and u-boat technology.

It seems that in a defensive deployment cannon could be used against approaching forces, but that moving and erecting a cannon in a forward offensive position would be slow, difficult, and dangerous. How was this done? Could artillery be moved forward at the same rate as marching infantry?

I've seen similar questions which kind of skirted the topic before on this sub, but I couldn't really find a concrete answer to this question. I've been reading up on Napoleon's storied career, and some of the actions he took in Egypt and Italy seem to grossly constitute war crimes on a huge scale (mass execution of surrendered Jaffas in Egypt was one that stuck out to me), as well actions he took once his rule of France was absolute. Why is it that, when portrayed in media and popular culture in general, the overall perception of him seems to be somewhat more positive?

Did the Spanish Army/Navy really wear yellow? Also, is the way Edward Kenway takes and boards ships at all like the real pirates did it?

Is it known why we nod our head up and down to say yes, and shake it to say no?

The thumbs up I believe to have something to do with religion (heaven and hell), yet when did it transform into a simple 'good' and 'bad'?

I've always "read" history. Ever since I was a kid. I'd bounce between fiction and non-fiction with every book, but as I continue to read history I realize that it's becoming less satisfying, that I've amassed a large amount of facts, but little understanding of history. I've started to narrow down my somewhat scattered readings (a history of North Korea, the Black Death, and a biography of Ben Franklin sum up what I've read in the past month) into a listing of the periods and places that truly fascinate me. I've started to dig deeper into each individual work, highlighting things for further investigation and taking note of other works the author cites to add to my ever expanding reading list, but I feel as though there's more I can be and should be doing.

Do you have any recommendations for someone who wants to learn the historian's craft without the resources of a school? I took some history courses in college, so I'm not completely a babe in the wilderness, but I feel as though I should have done more to expand my historiographical toolkit while I had the opportunity. I've noted the historiography section on the reading list and have already requested several of the books from my library, but I'd like to know if there's more I can do.

As you know, Poseidon wields a trident as his weapon. However, I have never heard of any ancient Greeks ever actually using this weapon in battle. Was this actually the case? Did the Greeks have a history of trident-use upon which they based the weapon of the god of the oceans, or did they just give Poseidon a fancy pitchfork and say "fuck it, he can fight with that."

I'm looking for something on the Greeks (hoplite and phalanxes) and Romans, and then something on some eastern (Chinese) units and formations as well.

Maybe through translations?

I've read that Henry Ford is considered pioneer of the living wage, and that health care, as a benefit, was first offered by businesses as a way to attract and retain good employees.

But as a kid I was kinda taught that 'fighting' people with money-business, the system, was the only way anyone got anything.

Last year a UC Davis study came up, , where they traced family last names from all over the world, for a period of 500 years.

They came to the conclusion that the poor have increased in wealth, but the middle class and the rich got richer too.

So what helped the labor-class,especially, the most?

Thank you and I look forward to your answer!

This is a question that has been on my mind for some time. From the birth of the Republic and until at least the middle of the 19th Century, it was common for people who worked in prestigious occupations like law or medicine to learn their trade through apprenticeship rather than by receiving a formal education at a university. These days, that's no longer the case. If you want to be a doctor or a lawyer, you have to go to school. What caused the decline of the apprenticeship system?

By that I don't just mean "how much have our thoughts changed because of the things that tell-all books and interviews have brought to light?" I mean, "has viewing the band through the lens of our changing culture caused the general public to think of The Beatles, the "mania" surrounding them, and the various 'characters' (the lads themselves, Yoko Ono, George Martin) in their ' story' differently throughout the years? In other words, is, to name an example, the 80s' Beatles story different from the 70s Beatles story? If so, how?"

On a side note, I'm kind of interested in how our changing cultural mores impact our understanding of historical events. Could you recommend any good articles/books on the subject?