In feudal Europe what were the courts like and how did politics happen, the mannerisms, etiquette and how people conversed and did political dealings, the dynamics between different fractions and people, different courses of actions which were known to happen, etc. I'm writing a story which involves court intrigue and I'm trying to get all the information I can.

For context, I visited a church over the weekend and was given an impromptu tour. My guide recently discovered that this stained glass window, which has been part of the church for over a century, was dedicated to a black man during a time when minorities weren’t allowed in the church. It’s reported that the gift was donated by the town. I have a friend in hot pursuit of the history. Within the last hour, she uncovered that he was in Quebec in Sept. of 1882, but was born and died (unconfirmed) in Louisiana. He could not read or write at the age of 16 according to the 1870 census and was working as a cook. Why was a stained glass window dedicated to him?

As far as I can tell, chariots originated in Mesopotamia and the design was refined in Egypt. But they were used across Europe by the Celts and the Greeks. They were found as far east as China in the Shang dynasty. Is there a reason why cultures across the globe developed and used chariots? Are they a product of a specific time frame (i.e. stirrups hadn't been invented yet)? Do certain geographic locations mean that chariots are preferred over calvary?

Finally, for something that was used so universally, it seems like their use just peters out after some point. What changed?

I was having an unrelated discussion with my friend, and I said that this scenario has never happened. No army has ever just decided that they were not interested in fighting anymore and then walked away from the battlefield.

After some research, I realized that this is quite specific in scope. So, I am wondering if this has actually happened in history.

It seems one of the main goals of the island hopping campaign was to gain access to airfields that would put mainland Japan in range of their bombers.

The cost of human life to gain islands like Iwo Jima was staggering. Couldn't they have conducted the raids from western China or even Russia?

To what extent did the average person understand the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany during the war? Was the holocaust a thing that people knew about? Were Hitler's fascist intentions known by many people?

I understand that the average person in the UK/US was broadly in support of the war, but I'm trying to understand what motivated that support; was it a rejection of fascist ideology? Did people want to save the jews and other victims of genocide? Or was it something else?

I'm asking because we see a lot of movies that were made after WW2 that focus on the justness of the war and how of course we wanted to fight the Nazi's, they were evil incarnate; I'm curious as to whether that was a thing people actually knew at the time.

Hello, I’m looking for recommendations on online historical sources on the reasons for the 1905 revolutions and its impacts on the tsarship. I’m really struggling as I don’t currently have access to any literature on the subject, and need to provide a historiography.

Some of the reasons in mind being the Russo-Japanese war, Bloody Sunday, the working class etc, the October Manifesto etc.

Thank you!

And how did he push through with this type of seemingly wide-scale reform? Was This action done out of some genuine desire to reform society or some sort of political scheme?

It's a commonly repeated fact in fashion history circles that "changes in the 13th century lead to a revolution in tailoring, leading to the creation of Fashion as we know it". It's rare to see this claim sourced, much less explained in any detail. I know part of the changes are more fitted clothes, but that's about it.

What changes took place? Were there any specific reasons (technological, social, cultural etc) that advancements in tailoring took place? Did these changes really 'create fashion'? Where did this originate?

After recently learning the famous quote "If I had Canadian Soldiers, American Technology and British officers, I'd rule the world" is fake, this got me thinking, did particular nations have any strengths and notable prowess, I keep on hearing and reading that Canadian Soldiers where shock troopers, and came up with the Idea of Stormtroopers during WW1, and during WW2, Canadian infantry was noted for their Infantry prowess, citing Juno beach a lot. Is there any evidence or reports suggesting the Canadians where particularly skilled? Minor Nations have a reputation for producing very skilled infantrymen, with the New Zealanders, Australians, Greeks, Finns, etc. All of which, their combat prowess has been noted by even by their enemy. Is there a reason for this? Or is it just a coincidence or even fake?

Furthermore, does their prowess still hold up, in later conflicts where they where involved. This last question might be to modern, so it's up for grabs if you want to answer it.

I've heard of times throughout history when animals were put on trial for various reasons, such as a rooster laying an egg or rats destroying property. However, I've recently seen folks saying that these weren't real cases, but actually the 17th-century equivalent of law school exam hypotheticals, much like my professors might populate our exams with Harry Potter characters, and that reports of such trials were misinterpreted by later readers.

So were animals actually put on trial in the past, or did somebody read an exam and misinterpret it as a real event?

I am aware that many believed that slavery caused issues, such as job shortages, ostensibly because slaves took many of the low-level jobs, but I am not sure if any key thinkers of the age were actually opposed to slavery as a concept itself.

I know its large Protestant propulsion gives it closer ties to England, but when Ireland gained its independence from Britain why wouldn’t Northern Ireland also jump at the chance?

The historiography for World War 2 seems to point towards Hitler's invasion of Poland as the "official" start point of the war, however why is it that the Marco Polo Bridge Incident between ROC and Japan isn't considered the official start of World War 2? At a glance, it seems pretty Eurocentric to focus specifically on Germany, along with the China-Japan conflict being lumped into its own distinct conflict (Second Sino-Japanese War) compared with the war in Europe which was lumped into the broader WWII narrative, but would be curious to know if there's a logical reason for it.

How did they stop the warping of wood in houses and projects involving large pieces of timber. Now we have chemicals that are put on wood to have the moisture slowly leave the timber over time. I’m interested in any time era and location on how they accomplished this. So how did they do it? Did they have large sums of timber being stored for long periods of time until use? Much thanks.

In the media A Viking raid is shown as a hoard of giants running 40km an hour with a 2 ton axe and stealing everything with 0 coordination or tactics what so ever and I’m willing to be that’s pretty inaccurate to what it actually looked like.