Long ago, in a college classroom far, far away, a Norse literature professor described a battle in passing. Having remembered it recently, I've been trying to track down the actual source, but I've been unsuccessful thus far. Hoping for some help in tracking it down.

Here's the description, clouded by intervening years and booze residue:

An invading force has landed on a peninsula that is connected to the mainland by a narrow isthmus. They outnumber the defenders, but the defenders are able to prevent them from passing through the narrow isthmus onto open ground.

There is a pause in the battle, and the attackers tell the defenders that it is dishonorable for them to fight this way, and claim that the honorable thing to do is for the defenders to let them onto open ground so they can have a fair fight.

The defenders converse among themselves, saying that they cannot do this because, outnumbered as they are, it would be suicide for them. However, their leader argues that they should do the honorable thing because though they will probably be slaughtered, their bravery and honor would be sung about forever.

And so they let the attackers onto open ground and are killed, but the story lives on and is told in my half-forgotten class.

This ring any bells for anyone? Keep in mind, I could be getting some major details wrong, and my professor may have been exaggerating to prove a point. Thanks all.

Thanks for any answer! I have no idea where to start my research paper!

What is very interesting is that a 10 cent coin is the smallest in other currencies as well. For example Canada's 10 cents, or UK 10 pence ( or sixpence back in the day). Also, old Soviet 10 kopek coin was the smallest, even though there were 1, 2, 3, 5 kopek coins which were larger in size. What is so different about 10 cents?

Hello all:

I'm a History Education major. I'm in my Western Civ class and we are at the WW1 portion of the semester.

The good news:

Learning about WW1 is incredibly interesting to me.

The bad news:

The politics / different countries / tensions are a decent bit of information for me to handle, so I'm trying to get a 'big picture' view of the situation first.

So far, what I understand, is that there's the triple alliance and the entente cordial. The entente cordial was in response to the triple alliance formed earlier.

Of course, within the alliance / entente are several countries, which I'm responsible for understanding the significance of the allegiances and alliances of them all.

The Germans / Austria-Hungry were alliances because of the proximity of the countries and the similar culture between the two countries. Germany's foreign policy consisted mainly of their agreement with Austria-Hungry. Italy was also a part of this, but I cannot remember the why. They were all pretty frightened of Russia becoming more of a power on the world stage.

I cannot remember why Britain and France had allied at this point, nor do I remember why Russia is allied with them, either.

These are all off the top of my head from class lectures without looking at notes / the book quite yet to study this information, so if it is wrong (entirely possible) it's my brain.

Basically, why I'm posting this here is:

confirmation / correction / better way of thinking about this.. I know nationalism, the arms race, and a few other aspects had to deal with the start of the war (Ferdinand being the most immediate example because he was about 1 month prior to the war breaking out)..

Just improvement to my understanding, really.

Thank you for your time.

Hey /r/AskHistorians! I'm looking for a good book about the Thirty Years War, Prussia, the life of Frederick the Great, etc. Any recommendations?

Subtext: When would the industrial revolution, with its associated inventions, have come to pass if the Roman Empire -- in an alternate timeline -- had been a more stable entity?

So I was recently talking to a German who had converted to Judaism, never had any Jewish ancestry and would easily fit the "Aryan" mold. So I did my research and learned that the Nazi's still rounded up Jews who had converted to another religion or denounced their religion because it wasn't about religion so much as linage and ancestry. Continuing my research I couldn't find any answers about what happened to people who converted TO Judaism. I'm sure it was rare in that time but I'm sure it happened and i'm curious what happened to those people, were they given the opportunity to switch back? Or would they be treated like any other Jewish person?

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. If the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that imminent tribunal."

I can't help but notice that Poland have been the poster child of the West, at least since 1919. It is seen as a advanced, democratic country that is constantly getting bullied by its neighbors.

However, the Second Polish Republic, even during its short existence, has done some very prick-like things, such as:

• The Polish-Soviet War
• Annexation of Slovak lands
• Annexation of Vilnius, and threatening Lithuania with war for them to recognize the annexation of their capital.

I asked this question in Reddit and out a lot, but so far I have not got a satisfactory response. The most common answer I've encountered was "they were just trying to prepare themselves for WWII." This answer then makes me wonder how annexing a few Slovak villages was going to help Poland defend itself against the German Army.

So can anyone here answer my question? Why, despite many instances of wrongdoing, is Poland still regarded as a poor, often-bullied victim of Eastern Europe?

I always thought that the Doolittle Raids were intended to show the might of the US military and its ability to strike whereever it wanted to the Japanese government. Did the raids actually have this effect? Was there an "oh shit" moment by the Japanese government after this bombing campaign?

Seeing as how blue eyes are a recessive trait, I was thinking perhaps that other eye colors have come and gone for humans, simply because they weren't passed on to the next generation. If there were humans with alternate colored eyes, perhaps it would have been noted?