After searching Reddit and the internet, I haven't (easily and clearly) found any concise list of the best hard evidence that Jesus, historically, as a person, existed. I'm not talking that he was the son of God, performed miracles, virgin birth, etc...

What's the best evidence you've found that Jesus did or did not exist as a normal human being?

Did they continue current actions uninhibited?

Did they attempt aid the fight in any way?

Were certain major Mob areas (Like NY or Sicily) affected more than others?

Or you can provide an overall comment on the Mob during the 40s. (Or even WWI if you have time, please exclude it in a bolded different section though)

I just finished Dennis Showalter's "Frederick the Great: A Military History", and came away with the impression (at least from the reading) that Frederick II of Prussia is severely overrated. He lost as many battles as he won, routinely attacked heavily defended positions, took a lot of risks that didn't pay off, made a lot of mistakes that he didn't necessarily learn from, and had a great lack of foresight for the future of military operations: i.e. use of light infantry and importance of reconnaissance. Not to mention routinely biting off far, far more than he could chew.

This is only an impression, though, as this is the only in-depth study I've read of Old Fritz, though I had a passing knowledge through my casual studies of military history. Is this author known for bias or hating on certain figures? (He tries to justify Frederick in a strategic context sometimes but it just doesn't ring true to me, if that helps.) Am I looking at his record wrong, or am I being too critical? And the central question: was Frederick the Great just a decent, arrogant, very lucky commander of soldiers - or did he kinda suck? Any answers I could get would be much appreciated.

One more thing Im confused about is what marked the end if the three estate system? Was it the August 4th 1789 conference (end of feudal system) or was it when the Declaration of the Rights of Man was signed or something else?

Was just thinking about this while doing the laundry today. Say you're a peasant in medieval Europe... it's a dry day, you go to pick up your tools or mistakenly brush up against an anvil.

All of a sudden you get this strange, unexplainable jolt. What would you think just happened? If you asked your local priest or miscellaneous educated person about it, what would they tell you? Was there a generally accepted theory to explain this before the properties of electricity were discovered?

Scenario is just an example, I'd be interested in any era or place.

Currently I'm writing a paper on Menno Simons, and am looking for the earliest source I can that uses the word Mennonites. I was curious if you all might have a source you go to search of the earliest date of a word that perhaps users had contributed or that was centrally controlled.

Thank you!

I posted this a few months ago and didn't get any replies, so I thought I would try again.

I've noticed anachronisms in a lot of works (mainly in paintings between 1100-1800) and want to know if it is intentional or not. People wearing clothes and armor from the middle ages in paintings telling the story of Christ is one I've noticed numerous times. There are tons of other examples like the depiction of contemporary (to the painter) architecture or landscapes greatly differing from what is described in the stories vs what the artist is depicting.

Was this done intentionally? Maybe to make it easier for the viewer to connect with the paintings. Or was there a lack of knowledge in that kind of history, specifically when certain technologies came about?

From what I understand, WWII began with a British declaration of war on Germany because of a guarantee to protect Poland. However, Germany invaded Poland concurrently with the USSR as the two nations had agreed to partition Eastern Europe between themselves (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact). If the initial declaration of war was to protect Polish sovereignty, why only declare war on only one of the aggressors?

From what I understand, a single, unmarried woman under English Victorian law ~1880 would have a 'feme sole' legal status instead of 'feme covert' (which is the status she would have if married).

But what I don't understand is if this status is also based on her dependence on others? For example, a single, unmarried woman who has her own property and such would be 'feme sole'? But what about a spinster aristocrat who is completely dependent on the money/ lodging of her family? She's not married, but she has no properties, etc... would she still be 'feme sole' because she is single and unmarried?

I just want to make sure I'm using the term correctly. Thank you!

Her memory is sharp, but it needs direction so I am hoping to get more specific questions.

I'm curious, as it must have taken a long time to transport some animals to Rome, and then to care for them.

I was watching an amazing movie called Gettysburg and it reminded me about how bad the guns that they used were. They shot, then spent the next few minutes reloading, before shooting again, and their guns were very inaccurate.

My question is, why not just use bows? Bows are, in my opinion, much better than the guns they had back then, reload time was almost nothing, much more accurate, and probably had comparable distance to a bullet of the time.

The big religions of today: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism all by themselves cover wide areas of the world or big numbers of followers. Was there any religion that was as big before the time of these could have been considered a major religion in the world?

Obviously technology and humans knowledge of the world of that time has to be taken into account.

I am English but I love cowboy movies. I was wondering why the armies that fight use springfield muskets while the people in the movies use seemingly stronger repeaters?

Did the U.S. already have ICBMs strategically placed and was that a factor in the U.S.S.R. decision to back down? Did the U.S. have to take down certain offensive weapons? Who gained the most out of the resolution?

To what extent, and for what duration, was Germany devastated? How did this cataclysm impact Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries? Are its aftereffects still felt?

This thought just came to me and I figured this would be the best place to get an answer. Given the time period, I would assume that most men on board were smokers. Was it allowed? If not, did sailors smoke anyways?

If crusaders took concubines or wives of Middle Eastern descent, and produced legitimate/or illegitimate heirs - is there any evidence of these children returning or settling in Europe?