I understand that for a time the Burgundy family was the royal family of france, but my misunderstanding comes from, if they were conquered by the frankish barbarian forces in the early medieval period, how did they come to power?

Sweden had a sterilization program for Sami women until 1975. Why?

I know that kings had a varying degrees of authority over their territory, but I've never really understood the process between the monarch making a decision and the decision being carried out. It seems like the monarchy is a sort of combined legislative and executive power, which makes some degree of sense, but I'd really like to know how kings actually ruled, especially with large empires.

So I was having a conversation about religion with a colleague and as the question states, the idea of Jesus being a general or high up leader of an early christian terrorist group was brought up. At first I dismissed the idea because it sounds like it classifies the past based on current social events. I am very much an amateur historian and ancient history isn't my strong point but the more I think about it though, the more it makes a lot of sense for these reasons:

• Christians were persecuted heavily by the Roman empire. Often times the punishment of christian worship was crucifixion. This punishment seems a bit extreme for me for just worshiping. Might the early Christians have received this punishment for conspiring against the state at the time?

• Christian worship places were often hidden and sometimes they were underground in what could have been a fortified position.

• The twelve apostles came from all walks of life and could helped with leadership/dissemination of propaganda.

• The Roman Empire controlled much of the Mediterranean during the time Jesus supposedly lived and they took most of it by military force. Couldn't this set the tone for a grass roots resistance in occupied lands much like we see today?

Anyways, what do you guys think? Are there any points I missed that may add to or counter mine? I'm not entirely convinced he was a general or that he even existed in the first place.

Did the Greeks and Romans see a hairless body as ideal? If so, did they shave themselves? Does evidence suggest that pubic hair would be painted on?

I was in a discussion with someone and they made this statement which I had never heard before. I was wondering the opinion of folks who know more than me.

To me at the least, the most recognizable kind of battle is where two ships exchange broadside fire. Was this common in the era of privateers and pirates? And if so, how did ships recover from what must have been severe damage?

I've heard this story (fable?) many times over the years: during a particularly bloody intrafamily struggle for the throne in England or Western Europe, one claimant faked being either mentally retarded or insane so as to avoid looking like a potential threat. After the mayhem subsided, he eventually revealed to the public that he was not, in fact, mentally ill. Any idea when/where/if this actually occurred?

I'm aware this does not strictly adhere to the rules of this sub-reddit, but /r/AskHistorians is probably one of the most helpful and knowledgeable subs out there and I can't imagine any other sub could point me in the right direction, so...

I'm rounding up potential contributors for an Opinionator-type blog to have a discussion about China's potential moves. I'm looking specifically for academics and historians who are knowledgeable of the history between Russia and China and may have some insight on how that may have bearing on the recent events in Ukraine. Any help is appreciated.

What did the Soviet Union stand to gain from murdering thousands of officers and intelligentsia? Was it simply a measure taken to preclude their involvement in resisting soviet occupation?

Maybe I'm miscalculating the sort of international work that was being done in the years leading up to the war, but were there any English or American or French or whatever scholars who tried to keep in touch with their Axis counterparts (or vice versa!) on the principle that human knowledge was more important than a temporary conflict? Or even for some other reasons; I just needed a way to describe it for the question.

Simpler: what sort of academic co-operation persisted between enemy powers during WWII? Did any?

I was thinking about how NATO and the Warsaw Pact both possessed extensive conventional forces in addition to their potent nuclear arsenals, and I thought about how separate those forces are (dedicated nuclear bomber wings and missiles as an example, both of which aren't necessarily forward deployed).

However, that brought up the question of what the SLBM carrying SSBNs on each side would do in the event of a conventional conflict. They were often deployed close to their opponents so that they could minimize response times, but they were also often tailed by so-called "hunter killer" submarines. Since what-ifs aren't in the spirit of this subreddit, I think a more useful question would be along the lines of what military planners on both sides thought should be done about these potent nuclear forces that were at the frontlines of potential conventional conflict. Were there any agreements between the superpowers over whether these submarines (which had significant stealth characteristics, powerful torpedoes, and long running time making them quite capable of conventional combat operations) would be attacked in a conventional conflict? Was there any worry of whether or not an SSBN under threat may attempt to launch their nuclear payload as a sore loser response? was there any training or measures to prevent this from happening?

If we had not advanced nuclear weapons after hiroshima and nagasaki, would Russia have invaded like they are made out to do?

AFAIK, in the beginning of Rome, to be in the army, one would have to already have owned equipment needed for war.

In addition, were Jacobites seen as a seditious element of society that had to be stamped out, or were they considered to be harmless?

You know a government has gotten on the wrong side of the west when the media starts calling it a regime. How did this phenomenon come about?

I understand that German/Austrian casualties were around 8%. But that largely came from conscription aged men correct? In 1946 or so, was Germany just a land filled with women, children, and old folks? If so, did women have a hard time finding partners? Did they develop programs to bring men back to the country? Any other thoughts?

I was reading about vikings earlier, and the magazine of course dated stuff xxx A.D and it got me wondering when people started to "celebrate" (for lack of a better word) Jesus.