Other than clothing and houses. Clothes are kind of a given and homes are not mobile goods.

After Henry died, Edward's reign was largely protestant but then Mary brought it back to Catholic and then under Elizabeth the country stabilised as protestant. A crazy time for religion in England but how did things fare by the time Henry died?

After having several posts downvoted recently for not being sourced, despite them being very basic or elementary facts, makes me want to seek further clarification. Not only from the mods but the subreddit itself.

In academia it is generally accepted you don't have to show a source for every single claim or fact. It is more for controversial or obscurbe things, basic dates and facts about a period are taken as granted (e.g. William the Conqueror being a Norman and invading England in 1066).

Should I treat posts on this subreddit more like I'm talking to an alien who knows nothing about history and source every single fact?

Also I have repeatedly been told to show a source for my personal interpretation of sourced facts. How is this possible? I thought reasoned interpretation based off sourced facts would be fine. Or am I only allowed to parrot the work of scholars who have came before me?

I also often see stuff upvoted, so assumingly be "correctly" sourced, that actually only links to some shoddy bbc or blog article. Or they have put in lots of dates and figures. Or a very general reference of some secondry source, often "introdcutory" material to a subject.

If the standards of the subreddit is to exceed the quality of most academic work when it comes to sources and refrences then that is fine by me. But can we have the rule enforced a bit more strictly.

Or altenatively can we relax the rule and allow the subreddit to self-moderate slightly. Assuming most of us are historians or amateur historians I don't see the problem with slightly more generealised summarys of things that are common knowlege to anyone with a passing interest.

TL;DR Where do I draw the line with refrencing? Even stuff that my proffesors wouldn't have considered poorly refrenced has been downvoted on this subreddit. Do I need to show proof for every single fact?

I can't seem to find the answer anywhere and I really need it for my history project due later today.

On my commute to work today, there was a brief story about political intimidation in Pakistan.

My rather weak knowledge of the two countries leads me to understand that while India has not been entirely the most democratic country in it's history, with the recent elections unseating the main party for the first time in it's history (thereby implying that single party meant exclusive political rule), Pakistan has been more plagued by military coups, police and intelligence agency intimidation against political opponents, as well as being "unreliable" in it's foreign policy commitments.

Is there a historical basis for this?

Oh...and no, "Because Muslim," is not a good answer.

At various points in its history the Vatican City has been a less than safe place to be, so was there ever any serious consideration given to moving to a relatively more stable area?

Clarifications:

• Bible = canon, deuterocanon, apocryphal, etc. So, I'm not interested in hearing about gospels, epistles, etc. that a Christian sect considers/ed as Scripture.

• People: I'd prefer theologians/other writers over rulers, so people like Athanasius of Alexandria over Constantine. But, I'll leave that up to your discretion, because the line is blurred when you get to certain popes or other rulers, possibly.

• Time/place - I hope this isn't too broad, but I'm curious about Christianity as a whole, so the early Church (2st-6th centuries AD) as well as the Protestant Reformation (so 16th-18th centuries AD?). The place would be the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Europe. In an effort to make this more narrow, let's just say the early church. So, 2nd through 6th centuries AD in Middle East/Mediterranean.

Essentially, I'm looking to read up on the historical development of Christianity's practice/theology.

Good examples of this would be in Troy (Ajax vs Hector) and (Hector vs Achilles cousin) and plenty of other movies.

Hi historians,

a small question which has been on my mind for a while. I'm Austrian myself, but unfortunately this topic was never really addressed in my academical life.

Austria had a bias against non German speakers in public life. Starting with the right to own land, political representation (voting rights), public services etc. But, was this a language discrimination or a ethnic one? Was a German speaking Slav considered German (in the sense of German speaking Austrian, not Germany Germany...) or still 2nd class citizen? Could I be a civil servant in Vienna when my parents came from Croatia? Did it make a difference if I have one German parent?

The question can be expanded to the Hungarian half after the compromise as well of course. But from my understanding the discrimination of Slavs was even higher in Transleithania at the time, so I guess the answer is more into the No direction over there.

Thanks for your time.

I know that the U.S sent Japanese-Americans to camps to live in during the war. Was this type of method used by the British? I know they wouldn't have been treated well by the general population but i's not sure if the government sent out a lot of Anti-German propaganda to these people.

I can imagine that the aristocracy and leaders were shocked, but was the reaction of the average person? Were the Western and Eastern Empires already so separated that the eastern part already felt different (Byzantine) or they did still feel Roman? Did they go through a Generation of '98 like Spain did when they lost the American-Hispanic war?

We're they known as the Romans? Eastern Romans? The Greeks? I know the name Byzantium was given to this empire until after it's desolation.

Did they? If they did, why?

So for the purpose of this example let's assume there is a king.

The king has two sons.

The eldest is going to inherit the throne, it is well known and acknowledged.

The eldest has his own son.

The eldest son dies before the king does.

Does the throne then ignore the grandson and default to the younger brother, or does the "line" continue?

Been researching this topic and finding it hard to find any explanation other than there was a successful balance of power.

Although Franco declared Spain officially 'non-belligerent', he was ideologically tied to the Axis powers and had a friendly relationship with both Hitler and Mussolini, who had both supported him with military and financial aid during the Spanish Civil War.

Given his close relationship to these countries and ideological leanings, how did Spain deal with the rest of Europe after war?