I am curious as to what the national sentiment was in the British Isles during the war. How did the average person feel about the situation? Did they support the Americans in that they felt for them and supported their cries of liberty? Were they seen as dirty rebels and nothing more. Something in between?

Iv'e been researching British political cartoons during the war recently, and it seems that before the war broke out, "coffee house" politicians generally supported the republican ideals coming from America. But after war breaks out, the tone becomes very negative and constantly attacks the reasoning and sanity of the patriots.

I'm curious what any Briton would have thought, regardless of class.

I am fascinated by the Anglo-Saxon period in Britain, and it's curious to me how after ~400 years of Roman occupation and settlement, the culture, building techniques, etc. all reverted to a more basic lifestyle.

From large stone villas and forts to wooden structures and less manufacturing--was there no one left who had the skill or knowledge to build large-scale stone buildings anymore?? I understand that the Legions and the governmental officials returned to Rome, but what about the families who had been there for hundreds of years? Why wouldn't they have stayed? Weren't they by then properly (for lack of a better word) British??

No, not your job here. That sounds awfully rude.

I mean apart from answering the great amount of questions here, what do you do for a living? I'm interesting in knowing how many of you are professors (or on your way) or students and whatnot.

Last night I watched the movie "Downfall" and it made me curious about some of Hitlers closest comrades.

I started reading up on Albert Speers and was surprised that he only received 20 years when Hess, who essentially defected and tried to sue for peace was given life in prison.

I'm by no means an expert on these two men's lives. I got the impression the allies at Nurnberg wanted SOMEONE to pay since most of the Nazi elite had already offed themselves. Thus Hess got life? I guess my real question is, why the leniency for Speers?

Charles V ruled one of the largest Empires in European history:

• What was the process of him becoming heir to so many territories?

• Was he raised as an heir to such a vast kingdom/empire? Did his early education prepare him to be such a mighty sovereign?

• Why did he abdicate in favour of his son and brother?

I would be very interested to hear about any relevant historiography or biography around Charles V.

It seems axiomatic to me that crime is poverty's handmaiden. It also seems axiomatic to me that this has always been the case, at least since the advent of large urban concentrations. However, I am not knowledgeable on the subject, and am unaware of any scholarship in the area.

Would anyone be willing to expound on this subject and perhaps direct me to some good sources/resources where I can learn more on the subject?

I was listening to a Dan Carlin podcast about the Age of Exploration and it mentioned the great value of Asian goods imported to Europe. As an American brought up with a focus on Western history, I have a limited understanding of the East's perspective on things. What kinds of goods did Europeans send to Asia?

Was pre-Colombian Italian food anything like modern Italian fare? Did Italy have any fruits/vegetables that were akin to the tomatoes its people now famously use in so many sauces and dishes?

Mental trauma appears to have increased over the past century, with a few hundreds in WW1 experiencing shell shock or being executed for "cowardice", more SS in WW2, "post-Vietnam syndrome", and finally PTSD from 9/11, civil war in Rwanda etc.

Prior to 1900 eg: Boer war, Crusades I can't find much talk at all about these kind of mental tolls. Were we just more badass because the baseline for violence was much higher eg: Roman games/pubic executions?

A popular belief nowadays is that being holding views contrary to Church teachings during the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance was more or less a one-way ticket to being burned at the stake. Now I have been doing some reading lately, and I understand that this wasn't totally the case, but it seems that being a heretic was/could definitely be a dangerous situation.

So how dangerous was being a heretic? Was the Church and Inquisition a sort of thought police, or did they only go after guys who started publicly talking heresy?

Sorry if this is the wrong subreddit, but I didn't know which one to post this. I've heard about if, and have done some research, but I cannot seem to get a grasp on the concept.

I am guessing that at least part of it was the same reason Italy didn't pose as much of a threat during the war itself- a lack of industrial base. Were there other factors as well? I know the US was pretty actively involved in restoring Germany and Japan; did they not focus as much on Italy for some reason? If it was just lack of industrial base, what led to Italy lagging behind the other Axis powers in this regard?

EDIT: And to clarify what I mean by "rebound", I'm talking about the fact that Germany and Japan are both economic giants, while Italy is seen as a bit of a "problem child" in the EU. I also get a sense, from the few 60's Italian films that I've seen, that Italy took longer to recover after the war than the other two powers did. Are these assumptions correct?

(Repost from r/History) I have recently read up on the works of Gar Alperovitz and was wondering if there were any alternative views from historians that you guys would be able to tell me about!? I would especially love to find a historian who argues it was because of American Racism or to simply end the war in peace!

Thanks ahead guys!

I'm wondering how accurate the narrative about "liberte, egalite, fraternite" is.

As far as I am concerned, there are three theories about the conversion of Turkish people into Islam.

One of them states that their 'Tengriism' was already close to the doctrines of Islam, so they easily accepted the religion as their own when they met Arabs.

Another theory defends that Turks were made muslims by the might of the sword. Especially Curcan and Talkan massacres are said to cause the masses to convert, as a means of saving their lives.

The last theory I know is a bit more simple. It asserts that the Turkic Beyliks (chiefdoms) of the time wanted to have better political and diplomatic relations with the Arabs, therefore, they lead their people into Islam.

Which one could be correct? Or is there a fourth theory?

I'm referring to land yachts or whatever you want to call them. Basically a wheeled vehicle with a sail.