Get detailed, please.

Homework assignment here, guys. I'm taking a class called Witches, Heretics and the Inquisition and I'm narrowing down on a final paper topic. This is always the hardest part for me; once I find it, I'm good to go. But getting there is difficult. I've narrowed down my main source material, that being Inquisitions and Other Trial Procedures of the Medieval West by Kelly.

I want to write about how the "Inquisition" was not a single entity but rather a decentralized, local process and what necessitated this structure and what it's drawbacks might be. My questions are whether or not this is a good topic to choose (meaning, am I going to be able to find enough material to back up a solid 12-page paper on it), what elements you think support the thesis within Kelly's writing if you've read it (or what elements of what you know about the inquisitions in general, maybe a few recommended sources would be awesome), or if this is just a bad paper topic and/or source in general.

You don't have to go too in depth or anything, I just need to bounce ideas around until something sticks well enough for me to get started working. So far, I've taken a particular interest in the relationship between local inquisitorial authorities and the seat of Rome and how the procedures and decisions could be manipulated by political intervention to this higher authority. Specifically, how this kind of interaction might leave local inquisition vulnerable to corruption.

Please, share your thoughts however relevant they might be. I'm certain I'll learn something. If anything about this question or how I've posed it isn't in keeping with the standards of this subreddit, I apologize. This is my first post. Just let me know so I can fix it.

Choose your own time period of the roman empire.

Hello there /r/askhistorians, I have a quick question for you all. I heard a while ago about an Indian weapon called a "Halladie" but I can't find it through google searches nor can I recall the program where it was featured. Would any of you be able to shed light on this weapon? (Additionally, I read on wikipedia that the Pata was eventually combined with flintlock pistols and if you guys have anything to say about that I would appreciate it as well)

The boundaries of colonies were drawn without regard for Africans by the European powers during colonization and often grouped together people of rival ethnic groups, which led to ethnic strife in the post-colonial period. Considering that the modern nation-state is generally organized around ethnic groups (people with a common language, history, values etc.), why didn't the leaders of the independence/nationalist movements organize their countries around [similar and/or friendly] ethnic or linguistic groups, and redraw the political boundaries of Africa when they gained independence?

Say I live in X communist nation, how would I join the party? Would have have to be in it pre-revolution days or what?

With the four year plan that started in 1936 they switched the economy towards war. Now how was this project financed, given that Germany was essentially in default? Prior economic growth in the twenties came from an export oriented economy, this was all financed by short term foreign loans - the money came in as interest rates were kept high, I guess that such a mode of financing must have been impossible during the thirties.

Firstly, this is not meant to be anti-semetic in any way, shape or form. I am just curious. I live in a predominantly Jewish dorm and it was brought up in conversation yesterday that Jews are hated in many places throughout the world. I claimed that that was fairly over dramatic but I did start to wonder why Judaism has been a popular source for hatred throughout history. After learning a little bit about Jewish culture in my dorm and doing some research on my own, it seems like maybe Judaism, as a race and religion, has brought some amount of hate upon itself. One of the first recorded events of anti-semetism was attributed to the "Jewish misanthropic outlook on life" and also their tendency to separate themselves from other cultures (Van Der Horst, Pieter Willem, 2003). Throughout history, they have had very strict laws with intermarriage and have considered themselves as the Chosen People. They also have "different classes within their society where they regard themselves as better people depending on what type of Jews they are": Cohen or Levite, Ashkenazic or Sephardic ( Jewish friends). It seems as though their claimed misanthropic and separatist views may have caused many different people to acquire a disinclination towards them.

Please correct me if I am wrong in any aspect as I am not an expert in any way. I am not claiming that this is the only reason, or even a predominant reason, for anti-Semitism but am wondering if there is any merit to this thought.

*source cross-referenced through wikipedia.

If I understand correctly, Texas declared themselves their own nation, Mexico considered it Mexican, and the U.S. considered it American. So once the war was over, wouldn't Texas still believe itself a country? The only reason I can think of would be if the U.S. threatened to take Texas militarily unless they joined peacefully.

Okay, that Great Man title is more of a hook to get people in the door. ;) My actual question is something along these lines:

Most everyone who at least dabbles in history has heard of the Great Man theory, almost in the same breath as "...but very few people take that seriously anymore."

So what are people taking seriously? And I don't just mean in the sense of "What makes history go?" that the Great Man theory set out to answer. More specifically, I'm wondering what contemporary theoretical frameworks are practicing historians using to contextualize and frame their own research and thinking.

As a related side question that probably will get tackled along the way: what sort of epistemic theories underpin different "camps" in current historical practice?

All my searches come up with nothing relevant, and I cannot find a detailed outline of the United States budget during the Great Depression. I realize that unemployment rates were high since the Wall Street Crash of 1929, but did the United States government lay off people in the military? I am trying to figure out if the United States Government lay off people in the United States military if the Great Depression struck again or the government decided to cut a significant portion of its defense spending.

I've been watching the Ken Burns documentary 'The War' over the past couple weeks. In one scene a former American POW who was held prisoner in Japan during the war was being interviewed. This was getting towards the end of the war, and the possibility of an invasion of the Japanese mainland was getting closer as the Americans took Iwo Jima. The soldier said that their captives told them that if the Americans ever invaded and tried to free them, that they would just be killed rather than allow them to be released. That made me wonder why they kept them prisoner in the first place? What was their purpose since they had so little regard for their lives? Was it to humiliate the Allies since the Japanese considered them so cowardly for surrendering rather than fighting to the death?

I'm obviously not advocating for the execution of POW's, but it just made me curious as to what their purpose was considering how they were treated and could have been treated.

I remember a small claim being made on the sincerity of Constantine's conversion into the Christian faith and seeing as it is Easter I find it fitting to ask.

From what I remember it was because he had somehow killed his wife and son (I think it was his wife and son) and somewhere down the line he felt a painstaking need to repent his actions; though the pagan Roman faith at the time was fervently against anything like that ever being forgiven, so, he turned to Christianity.

We have all heard of the story of how in a dream before battle he saw the rising cross in the sky, uttering that famous latin line, flinging him off his horse by the power of the divine and yadda yadda hahaha. Really flamboyant story.

But was it all just a big bag of hot air to cover up his ulterior motives? I am incredibly interested to hear a reply... Just the gravity surrounding it is incredibly heavy. Is Christianity only around today because Constantine decided to off his family?

I'm off to work, but I am very interested to hear replies. Have a great day guys.

For example, War Pigs by Black Sabbath, and Ohio by Neil Young, being written as songs protesting wars/acts of aggression by governments. Was music always viewed in this sort of way, or was there a certain time period where people decided to start using music as expression a distaste for government actions (I.E laws, wars, hostile acts, etc?) Sorry if I'm not clear enough in my wording

I've read that he had a significant influence, and I've read that the influence is vastly overstated. Is there any specific evidence indicating Richard Wagner had a significant influence on Hitler?