I understand that religion was a FAR more sensitive issue at the time, but Why was it so bad that the Mormons were basically chased out of the state of Missouri and had to go to the other side of the country to find peace. I feel like the fact that they were claiming to be a new Denomination of Christianity wouldn't make it as scary for the American populous to accept. But then again I know that Joseph Smith basically added an entirely new section to the already agreed upon bible, not to mention that the bible doesn't speak kindly of adding or taking words out of the bible. But what i really want to know, is is there some type of underlying detail about Mormons as people that made them so easy to hate? Did they have obnoxious accents, were they kinda snobby to the rugged Missourians? Is there some type of detail i'm Missing that made them so Hated in early America?

Hi all, first time on this subreddit. I've always been curious and quite interested in the Sengoku period of Japan, and usually my go-to source for info is Wikipedia. I was wondering if anyone had any more reliable, in depth sources, book suggestions, etc, that I could take a gander at. Thanks in advance!

I.e. what excuses did they use to justify their behavior?

Germany's biggest fear leading up to WWI was having to fight a two-front war, and though they ultimately won in the East it all ended in disaster. The Nazis clearly worried about the same dangers, so they did the smart thing and signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin before WWII.

In 1941, the Nazis were at peace with the USSR. They were fighting plenty of other battles in the West, and with events like the Battle of Britain it was becoming clear that despite being the most powerful nation in Europe they couldn't expect certain victory in everything. Hitler was many things, but stupid wasn't one of them.

Maybe the Nazis were doomed to fight the USSR eventually, but why did they decide to commit so many resources to the East in 1941? Why not focus attention on winning in the West, and wait to face the Soviets until they had peace and could devote themselves solely to Russia?

I recently started reading my kid Astrix and Obelix comics from my old collection and I stumbled across a panel in Astrix and the Laurel Wreath where a family of Romans start a 'surprise' orgy. This got me thinking about how Roman sexuality is displayed in America. For instance I just watched a History channel program about Pompeii and they basically spent the whole two hours explaining how Christians were being prosucuttted and Pompeii was Gamoroh number II and was just spantanouse sex everywhere. How much of this was basic Christian/History Channel bullshit or was orgies a big part of Roman sexuality?

I imagine I've betrayed some gross misconception or another by phrasing my question in the above way, but I'm curious about how far from the city itself a polis' authority over land might have extended, and how such limits/boundaries (well-defined or no) were determined and/or challenged. Apologies for any foolishness inherent in the question!

I know this is a very oversimplified statement, but it seems to come a lot during World War 2 discussions.

Specifically, I'm interested in the "British intelligence". I know of the immensive loss Soviets faced, and the incredible rate of American weaponry and vehicle production that they Lend Leased.

When I think of British stereotypes during the Second World War, I think of Bletchley Park, spies, intelligence gathering, sabotage, and daring commandos.

How accurate is this?

Links to online archives would be amazing! Thank you!

Example copied from Wikipedia:

According to Jewish law, when Jewish boys become 13 years old, they become accountable for their actions and become a bar mitzvah. A girl becomes a bat mitzvah at the age of 12.

Considering the Anglo-Saxons came to England from the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, I assume they share a common ancestry with the Vikings who later would settle and raid there as well.

How similar where the languages of these peoples? Considering German and English and Dutch today are very similar, and that German is also somewhat similar with Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, it makes me curious how different the linguistics of the Anglo-Saxons was from the Old Norse tongue at the time of their conflicts.

Where did ancient philosophers get their income to support their life? Did they get anything for teaching? Were they supported by the "government"?

The Normans were, after Hastings and the Harrying of the North, replace the Anglo-Saxon nobility with a Norman nobility in merely a generation.

Why were they able to do this? It seems to me that most Medieval local nobility has far more staying power against their overlords trying to displace them. Why were the Normans so effective at it?

I've come across some obscure sources/references that could seriously challenge the commonly-held notion that heliocentrism only ever became widely accepted amongst leading scholars during the Renaissance.

My questions are: Have there ever been any challenges to this commonly-held belief in the past? And if so, what sorts of examples were used as supporting evidence? Were there other cultures that supported this hypothesis with evidence before the Europeans?

Specifically the account given in the book "Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness"

It seems to me that he spent most of his administration embroiled in petty cabinet scandals and personal vendettas when he wasn't committing genocide against the native Americans.

I went to a Catholic school and I remember that, in one of the history lessons, the nun told us that, after the American Revolution, the pope wrote to Washington asking where the Catholic Church could establish a diocese. Washington wrote back telling the pope that we had no rules and he could do as he pleased. The nun said the pope was delighted.

Does anyone know if the above incident or anything even remotely resembling it ever happened? Or, was the nun badly mistaken?

I guess this isn't so much a question of history as it is a question of the definition of socialism, but at the time would that have fallen into the accepted parameters of socialism?

Odd question, but I've been thinking about it-is Hitler really the world conquering, misanthropic asshole history paints him as, or is there anything that could be viewed in a sympathetic light? We spend so much time in history class focusing on what he did, but we never consider the why. And my own history teacher once said that "why" is the most important question, so I'm asking it now!

You always here about Roman Emperors (and other kings and emperors throughout history for that matter) spending a lot of time in the field leading armies. Who then was running the empire? How did they rule from the field?