Additionally, how was it that the mayors of the palace began to usurp the authority of the monarch? Was it a very gradual process, or did a single weak king let it all go?

In TV and movies with time travel as a plot, Nazis or some other group will get a cell phone, or computer from the present, and it completely changes the time line. Would it have been possible for scientists in the 1940's to learn any useful information from modern electronics?

Also not sure which subreddit to place this. I had thought /r/askscience , but this is probably more of a history question.

History seems to remember Churchill as one of the greatest British prime Minsters who pulled the country together to fight alone against fascism, but was this the case? In the age of appeasement it didn't seem like much people wanted a war with Germany but Churchill. Did people support fighting Germany over Poland? Even after rationing, conscription and their streets getting bombed?

Is this why he wasn't re-elected after 1945? Did people support his government polices in both his terms? besides polices regarding WW2 what other polices did his government have?

Examples I've seen were the Ottomon Empire's elite foot soldiers, the Janissaries, as well as administrative positions such as the Chief Eunuch, a man who (at one time at least) controlled an impressive network of inter-governmental spies through which he could gain leverage over generals and political figures alike. How did this come to be? And with military and governmental leverage did they ever attempt anything like a coup?

There was still a lot of isolationists running around and there was no direct reason for the two countries to fight. If Hitler had just ignored Japan's request to declare war on the US, would it have been a "Well, this is awkward" situation between the two countries for an extended period of time?

Are they native to the Americas?

Throughout the early and early-modern period in history, the southern tip of India appears to have been the hardest to conquer. The Guptas did not bring it into the empire, and neither the Mongols nor the Mughals succeeded in this area. Any thoughts why?

This comes from a discussion over at /r/DowntonAbbey, so I hope you aren't too sick of answering questions stemming from that show.

I've been interested in the cultural category of the "old maid" for awhile, but it wasn't until a discussion about the nature of lady's maids that I realized the term "old maid" may actually come from the tradition of women in service remaining unmarried. I'd like to find out about the origins of this term. I know that by the mid-19th century, there were concerns in England about the proportion of women to men, and thus the large numbers of older, unmarried women, but I'm curious to know how this group became known as "old maids."

OED lists the earliest uses of the term as:

1530 J. Palsgrave Lesclarcissement 250/1 Oulde mayde, luberdine. 1616 G. Chapman tr. Homer Odyssey i. 16 The soft weeds he wore, Put off; and to the diligent old maid Gaue all. 1673 R. Allestree Ladies Calling ii. i. §5 An old Maid is now..look'd on as the most calamitous Creature in nature. 1683 R. Dixon Canidia v. iii. 34 'Tis a cursed thing to be an old Maid. 1711 J. Addison Spectator No. 7. ¶4 An old Maid, that is troubled with the Vapours.

Does anyone know more about Chapman's translation of the term in The Odyssey as listed above? And, can anyone point me the in direction of some useful articles about the history of the "old maid" trope? Thanks!

I'm interested in knowing if the American civil rights movements of the 60s influenced similar movements in Mexico.

I was thinking about this while watching 12 Years a Slave. The book was published the same year Solomon Northrup was rescued from slavery, so Edwin Epps was probably still alive and would have been aware of the book. While I have no doubt that slave owners were capable of great cruelty, it seems like we only get one side of the story from slave narratives. They were written and published with the support of abolitionists who had an agenda to promote (ending slavery), so they should not be seen as perfectly objective accounts of the events. Did Epps or any other slave owner ever deny the accusations made about them?

I'm looking for a general introduction in danish history, preferably written in danish. What are the best up to date books that give an overview of danish history, not being too detailed, yet not merely providing a superfical listing of dates and events? Optimally it would be in a style similarly to Will Durant's "History of Civilization" series.

I have tried searching in the danish public library, but I find it rather difficult to navigate over a 1000 matches, and I quite frankly don't know whether or not the books I find are any good or not. If someone could recommend me the most respected books on danish history, preferably in danish, I would be grateful.

Hello, I hope this is the right place to ask this. I have a quite specific question; I was watching the TV series 'Rome' a while ago, and in the opening sequence, there's shots of what looks like a huge, open-air public calendar, with alcoves, some holding small statues. Was this a real thing? What was it called? Was it used for religious purposes, i.e. so people knew when particular festivals would start? Google just throws up results for modern calendars with pictures of Rome, etc. Thank you!

The nobility in Europe from the middle ages onward was constantly inter marrying and as time approached WWI the signs of this were extremely apparent with genetic disorders from inbreeding. My question though is aimed at isolating the reasons why kingdoms such as France and England didn't simply arrange a marriage to unify their empires, or when they did, this union didn't continue on to the next generation to bring in others such as Spain, Austria, and Denmark.

Was there a mindset that if a king had one daughter and she married into another kingdom, that the girl's father had ended his bloodline or lost in someway?

Was it the fear that other nations would take action against a union, as in the War of the Spanish Succession?

I recognize that there are many forces acting to break kingdoms down, such as inheritance dividing the holdings between sons. I would like to hear some opinions on what prevented sudden and massive unifications.

I currently have an assignment to critically analyze Mohammed & Charlemagne and the Pirenne thesis. (note: I do not want academic criticism of this particular work explained).

I'm feeling somewhat lost because I'm used to reading respectable secondary sources and learning from them, not necessarily trying to pick them apart. It feels wrong to approach a book that an imminent historian spent months or years researching and composing, looking for flaws. The arguments seem presented in a reasonable way, and without knowing his evidence thoroughly it's difficult to see where it can be criticized.

I have a hunch my only option is to really line up his premises and the arguments he makes and look at those, but I'm feeling kind of stupid and inadequate :(