I love JSTOR and other academic search engines. Can you recommend other databases or ways to find primary sources. I am specifically looking for anything to do with Russian History. Thanks!!

I know this isn't historical what-if, but I am curious as to what point in time this was most possible, or if it was ever possible. It's more of a day-dreaming thing for me right now, but maybe one day I could pen it into historical fiction with the answers here being the foundation for further research.

Also, by single Kingdom, I'm specifically referencing one with a single-language and legal system (ala post-Bourbon Reforms or Francoist Spain).

Thank you. :)

In US History we always read about Christian pilgrims settling the USA. When did Muslims start immigrating to the United States? What about Jews? Hindus? What drove different religions and cultures to the New World? Did they have regional tendencies when they were choosing where to settle? Thanks guys!

I don't know much about Spanish history and would like to learn, particular from a book that tells it in "story" form (rather than one that gets into historiography). Does anyone have recommendations? I'm more interested in the medieval than colonial periods.

Thanks!

I know Goering was the second in command in nazi Germany but if hitler had died during the war would he have become the fuhrer? Would goebbels or any of the other German heirarchy have made a claim or had a chance to become the leader?

Does it just come down to marketing?

I am reading Frank McLynn's Napoleon and he writes that Napoleon was basicly kidnapped by the British. He entered the British ship Bellerophon voluntarily, seeking asylum, the war was over between France and England, so he wasn't a prisoner of war.

So his legal status technically was unlawfully imprisoned...

I have a great uncle who insists that this is exactly what it was like before Germany invaded Poland and that he can't believe that all the signs are there and nobody is noticing, et cetera. Can somebody shed some light on this big claim?

This is a re-do of a question I asked yesterday but was removed because it asked about the modern day. Reading the New Testament makes Jesus seem like a based egalitarian populist proto-communist hippie. In medieval times the clergy often supported the concept of nobility and divine right, seems very opposed to Christ's original teachings. What was used to justify this? Did they even need to justify it because most were illiterate and would just take the priest's word on it (or is this in itself a historical misconception) ? Just to clarify I'm just using hippie as a term for a pacifist anti establishment populist, of course Jesus didn't make peace signs or live out of a van (as far as we know).

Seven ships, (including two Italian battleships) were named after him, and whenever I see a list of top ten best naval commanders, his name seems to always be there. I have nothing against Andrea Doria, because he was a pretty cool guy, I'm just trying to figure out how it was that a commander who seems to have lost far more than he won achieved such a grand reputation in the annals of history.

Been watching Fame of Thrones and though it's a fantasy medieval setting it made me curious as to weather those times were just as, not as, or even more violent then they are portrayed in to the show and other medieval media.

I have been wondering this for a while, what did alchemists actually do and what was their actual motivation? Most importantly, was there anything in particular that got their ultimate goals of creating gold and obtaining eternal life going?

Aside from the superstition regarding them, did they actually manage to contribute with medical knowledge or the likes of it, or were they simply a burden for everyone?

Despite the fact that different Arab variants are called "dialects" in they are actually separate languages. Tunisian is incomprehensible to an Egyptian for instance and Syrian is considerably different than both. No one speaks Modern Standard Arabic at home, and many uneducated Arabs have trouble using it. However, it is used for most official and intellectual activity. Why is this?

I was watching the Clive Owen King Arthur movie (which I recognize is not exactly a bastion of historical veracity) and in several of the battles he and/or some of the other knights will, after their initial charge, rear up their horses and dismount to enter the fray on foot. I realize that this is done for the sake of choreography, but it did make me wonder. Were there combat circumstances under which a knight would intentionally dismount and continue to fight, or even enter the battle on foot? If a knight were knocked or thrown from his horse but still able to fight, how might he proceed?

I've read about his plans for Eastern Europe, but never what he wanted to do with his occupied lands in the west.

Obviously the tactic couldn't conceal the soldiers once they came within a certain distance of the castle, but how much extra time could such a camouflage be expected to give to an advancing army, if the tactic was ever successfully pulled off?