I've read before that Manichaeanism continued until the 14th century, in the form of Catharism. Is this true? Can the identity of the Cathars really be traced directly to the Manichaens? I'm not very familiar with the Cathars, but I read a bit of Mani's texts in a class last semester, so I'm curious.

Lets say the Duke of Saxony somehow inherited the County of the Palatinate, would the Duke of Saxony then have the voting power of two electos, or would a new elector have been chosen?

I was just wondering what these hunter gatherer populations reacted to natural disasters that may have occured where they lived. Did they link it to their religious beliefs (which has definitely occured in civilization)? Were large populations wiped out by natural disasters?

That is, would they have had any prior combat experience to the Normandy Invasion? Did they try to use an army primarily of veterans from the Pacific/African fronts, or would D-Day have been the majority of the invaders' first day in the combat zone? In which case, were there any serious objections raised about sending green troops up against the presumably battle-hardened Wehrmacht?

I ask "American" specifically because I assume the majority of the British army would have fought elsewhere in the war (if only because of its smaller size), but the question could equally apply to them.

Nowadays you still have to pay a lot for a pair of custom made glasses. How much would you pay for a pair of eyeglasses when these were first invented in the 13th century?

Certainly there was a lot of hand work involved while creating the lenses. Did this mean that only the extremely rich could afford glasses? Where there alternatives for the people without much money?

A serious question please no racially charged answers.

After watching Historical shows like the Tudors and The White Queen, it seems like it was very commonplace for the Kings to have mistresses.

So I have a few questions:

1. Is the above correct?

2. What are the common repercussions that Queens faced for doing the same?

3. Christianity was very widely accepted. Could a queen hypothetically appeal to the papacy for a divorce or separation based on grounds like "the king is disobedient to god"?

4. Have any of the English kings ever been deposed for being unfaithful to his queen?

5. Could you provide an in-depth explanation of the attitude that the general English populace had towards infidelity?

Thanks!

To start off with a broad generalization, people tend to associate Protestantism in Ireland with British settlers, but there must have been some native Irishmen who converted to Protestantism. I'd like to know about a bit more about the Irish Protestant population. My main questions are these:

1. Is there any way to know how many native Irish Protestants there were? Demographic information would be nice.
2. Which demographics were most attracted to the Church of Ireland? Was it mostly artisans and burghers? Did more men join the CoI than women?
3. How were the Irish Protestants perceived by the Catholic Irish population, by the British settler population in Ireland, and by the British outside Ireland?
4. What books might shed light on this subject? A work on Irish Protestants would be ideal, but a good general history of the Church of Ireland would also be appreciated.

In terms of time period, I'm most interested in information from the early 19th century (from the Act of Union to the start of Victoria's reign, perhaps), and the early 20th century.

I would really appreciate any information you could provide, especially book suggestions. I'm dying for a good book to read.

Well lets just say I can see the massive surplus of able bodied young men flooding the civilian sector and I know job prospects are grim since they sucked before I enlisted. How likely is it that I can stick around in the military?

Why was there such massive panic in the US when the USSR placed nuclear missiles in Cuba when there were American nukes already in place in Turkey?

Did the Americans genuinely think that the Soviets wouldn't respond? What did they expect? And, most importantly, how was this "double standard" talked about? Or was it completely ignored in something resembling Orwellian doublethink?

This is my final paper topic for a university class. History isn't even close to my forte, and I'm having serious trouble with this one. I know rich British guys toured on down to Italy/Greece (if they could get the protection) etc., obtained (stole?) artifacts while they were there, and eventually gave them to museums.

My problem here is that this essay is 5000 words long, and CLEARLY there's some huge chunk of something I'm missing because I've got about 1000 words and nothing else in my brain.

Unsourced answers, sourced answers, and just sources are all appreciated. I'm coming here as a last resort, but I've heard good things about you guys from my history-inclined friends. Thanks in advance!

I'm not entirely sure if this is the correct sub to post this question in, if it is wrong feel free to let me know.

I'm wondering, though, if there are any fairies associated with suicides, or fairy tales on the subject.

Just wanted to say thanks to those who responded, you've been a great help.

Im British so my knowledge of it isnt spectacular, but it seems to me that this policy was similar to European expansion in places such as Africa (as in "Natives are inferior to us, so we must take their land and 'civilise' them"), and yet it is not held in the same level of disdain. Am i completely wrong about this or what?

I am looking into how Alfred Crosby's model of Ecological Imperialism can be applied to the history of coffee, chocolate and tobacco.

I see ecological imperialism as the successful exporting (intentional and unintentionally) of Old World flora, fauna and pathogens into 'Neo-Europes' (locations with similar climates to Europe) because Old World plants and animals are more aggressive and adaptable compared to New World plants, animals and pathogens.

When applying this to the history of coffee, chocolate and tobacco, there can be similarities drawn between the ecological imperialism model of Neo- Europes (replace Neo-Europes with Neo-tropics as these plants can thrive within 40degrees north and south of the equator) which can help explain how these colonial goods were successfully transplanted and cultivated away from their locations of origin. Coffee originating in East Africa, now is primarily grown in South America, and chocolate and tobacco both originated in South America and are now primarily grown in Africa.

I am looking at the spread of Leaf Rust in coffee to link it into Crosby's model of pathogens being a key facilitator of his model of ecological imperialism.

One large difference I see is that within Crosby's model, the changes primarily occur as an indirect consequence of human action, whereas with regards to coffee chocolate and tobacco these changes happened as a consequence of direct human action.

If anyone could offer some thoughts about my ideas they would be much appreciated!