After he united Japan under his leadership and launched an attack over Korea to reach China, why he wasn't fully informed about the situation of his campaign?

I hear somewhere that his generals were afraid of him because he was becoming paranoic and some sort of mad tyrant.

But for the sake of the war and the invasion wasn't wiser to fully inform the situation rather than hide it? So better plans could be done, even more when Tokugawa Ieyasu was his right hand man.

Does Ieyasu acknowledge or was informed about the logistic problems and the lack of territory gain inside Korea, so he could advice Hideyoshi on how to deal with that situation?

Pardon for any grammar mistakes, english is not my native language.

Okay so this was a Facebook post about how we are taught about how horrible the Crusades were in 10th -13th centuries, but the post claims that they were just counter attacks to Islamic Expansion in the 700s to the 1100s. The post claims that Islam attacked Europe 587 times while the Crusades were only 13 attacks. The post also says that the Crusades were only a counter attack to Islamic Aggression in France.

How true is that, and are the Crusades intentionally over-vilified vs Islamic expansion? Or is this post just full of malarkey?

How did the average educated person view the Roman empire after the west had fallen? Also, I am aware that the Eastern Roman Empire still officially considered themselves the real Roman Empire until their demise, so did the despoliation and degradation of the Byzantines lead to people looking down on Rome?

I was watching a video on the Falklands Conflict and the presenter casually mentioned that the British Task Force only had 22 Sea Harriers with it when it arrived for the policing action. Why so few aircraft? From my brief reading on the subject, it seems like between HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible they should have been able to carry twice as many aircraft? Given that the fleet's greatest vulnerability seems to have been stack by Argentina's air force, wouldn't it have made more sense to bring the greatest number of fighter aircraft possible?

The 1874 Brussels Convention banned chemical weapon and poisonous weapons in war, yet WWI had chemical weapons.

The 1925 Geneva Conventions prohibited the use of chemical warfare, and there weren't uses of chemical weapons on the battlefield in WWII

What changed? What made those countries obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions, but not the Brussels Convention?

From what I've read Nixon approved of government programs and intervention if necessary (environment, NASA, etc.) but still tried to cut spending where he saw fit, whereas Reagan's approach sort of moved the country to the mindset of objectively viewing government projects and involvement (outside of defense) as bad in general. How did Nixon view this shift in Republican attitude towards government? Additionally, how did their views contrast on the roles of state vs federal government?

I cannot find an answer to this, not anywhere.

i mean politically divided between the allies, since the wall only was only built starting in 1961.

I don't know what was the logic behind making an exclave of West Germany in East Germany. Was west Berlin originally meant to be a espionage paradise for the soviets and capitalists alike?

Thanks!

Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t all of the successor kingdoms like ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid empire ruled by his generals?So what happens to his family where they all killed or just sidelined and made irrelevant?

My admittedly cursory understanding of early European history is that celtic Indo-European people migrated from modern-day Turkey to Germany (mixing with Scandinavians (?) to become the Visigoths and Ostrogoths), Gallia (Gauls), Spain (the Celtiberians), and the British aisles (Britons) between 7000-2000 BCE.

Later the Gauls were mostly subjugated by Rome who then shared a border with the Germanic tribes east of the Rhine. I know warlords like Ariovistus made forays into Gaul from Germany but were beaten back. Then in the fourth century AD Gothic and Vandal tribes migrated west, displaced by Slavic migrants and the Huns, pushing into France and the Italian peninsula culminating in the fall of the WRE. Please correct anything overtly wrong here.

I'm really struggling to understand how these tribes became the Medieval kingdoms of 1000 AD + Europe. I know they were sometimes large pseudo-nations organized around powerful tribal warlords which is not too dissimilar from Feudalism. I also know Charles Martel and Charlemagne fought the Moors in the Iberian peninsula, adopted Christianity and founded Francia. How exactly did they go from tribes trading with/borrowing technology from Rome to huge, organized Feudal states? How did the Goths and Vandals form the Holy Roman Empire?

I have a few questions all rolled into one, so I'm going to bullet them for ease of reading:

• Did consuls (particularly those that weren't also part of the imperial family) continue to have substantive responsibilities during the Empire, and if so, what were they? And did a consulship under Augustus look different than, say, a consulship under Aurelian or Diocletian?
• As the Republic transitioned to the Principate, was it more or less immediately apparent that the consulate was now effectively a figurehead position doled out by the emperor, or was it still seen as a prestigious and influential role?
• Did Romans continue to use consular dating during the Empire ("in the year of the consulship of X and Y"), or was that replaced by dating events by the year of an emperor's reign?

I've been trying to get a handle on the application of criminal law in general in early 14th century England (very much in flux after the reforms of Henry and the kings who followed him, and the charters).

And the more I delve into it, the more confused I get about how it functioned on a daily basis, and especially how it applied to lords, barons, and earls - there is no shortage of histories of lords in prison or executed for political crime like treason or rebellion, but I can't find anything at all about things like theft or murder of a private citizen.

My primary question is, Did the law apply differently (officially or unofficially) to the upper classes in matters of criminal law at this time?

I am also a bit confused about the application of the law in general. I think that by that time, an unpaid petty constabulary had taken over for tithings in most places, but I am not completely sure. Also, for the Eyre court, how long would a person have been waiting for them to come to town, or what punishments for theft would have been (I've read everything from a fine, to mutilation, to death depending on the source)?

An apparent etiquette expert claims that sticking one’s pinky out is a practice from the late c18th French court, intended to signal that you had a sexually transmitted disease. I am pretty sure that this is completely unfounded, but all that I can find through cursory google searches is equally dubious stuff from similar sources, including pretty much opposite claims for the same time period that it was supposed to signal sexual attraction.

So I’m wondering if anyone knows the history of these practices or can at least definitely debunk these ideas- or prove them as the case may be.

Great ancient empires like Axum or the Nubians (which I believe was part of north Africa) have very little about them. I attributed that to the lack of written sources but it seems we know as much if not more about Mesoamerican civilizations despite their remoteness compared to the old world and lack of written records as well. Whenever I look up great African civilizations outside of Egypt or north Africa, there’s almost nothing. Even relatively modern ones like the kingdom of Kongo or Ethiopia (which if I’m not mistaken has perhaps the most information about it). My question mostly concerns the civilizations during classical antiquity.

Thank you.

A few years ago I read that the Galatians are a Celtic tribe who live in Anatolia, which is far away from Gaul. How did they get there? where do they come from? Are there other Celts in Anatolia?

In light of the recent disclosures by US Officials confirming and promoting the fact that there’s some kind unfathomably-advanced transmedium “tic tac” crafts violating air space constantly that we are powerless to do anything about, are there any less-tinfoil sources or academic speculation on how far back it’s potentially been happening?

Also what’s the potential impact these kinds of sightings may have had on human myths and religions? Could the weird ovals darting around in the sky in defiance of physics have been interpreted as gods?

I am aware of Malay settlements in New Zealand, but why were there not any settlements of Malays in West Australia?

Hyperinflation and mass economic instability led to fascism in Germany. Also, these economic factors also led to massive communist uprising in Germany as well, as citizens flocked to radical ideologies to cure their suffering.

However, Mussolini came to power years before the great depression. What drove the Italian people to him without significant material hardship? Also, were there communist uprising to counter the rise to power like there were in Germany and Spain?

I am very interested in the time-period.

If it started in China and devastated its population, why do we barely hear about how it affected Korea?

Despite constant changing of shogunates no one ever overthrew the emperor in Japan. Why was this when other countries with kings who claimed divinity were overthrown often?

Hello, this is my first post here.

So I was reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra by F. Nietzsche in a Barnes & Noble edition. At the introduction, Higgins and Solomon assert as follows:

"Nietzsche had suggested at the beginning of The Gay Science that tragic ages are those that seek some purpose to human existence and accept the doctrines of some moral teacher about the nature of values, good, and evil. (...) But also according to Nietzsche (...) tragic ages give way to comic ages, in which the meaning or purpose of life is no longer raised as a question, for life is assumed to be valuable just as it is."

During the text, the authors reinforce that the twentieth century was in fact a tragical century. I realize Nietzsche's quote is not necessarily a historical remark, and here he is talking about tragedy in a Greek sense of the word. But I've read somewhere that history tends to repeat itself and this notion of "ages" got me thinking.

Based on what humankind know of history, ages, cycles and so on, is there such thing as an idea that ages might repeat themselves? What can the study of the past tell us about the future without lacking the intellectual and scientific vigour?