For my RE project, I need to make a presentation about the crusaders and religions and cults they got into contact with and brought to Europe. I'm having difficulties finding literature so it would be greatly appreciated if somebody could suggest some sources.

Thank you.

I read it and found it well written and informative as a common person with an average knowledge of historical analysis, american history. How do actual historians view this book in terms of research and composition?

We’re all pretty familiar with Roman numerals, but when talking aloud about numbers, did Roman language mirror their numeral system in some way, or were the numerals distanced from the spoken way that numbers were communicated in their culture?

Romeo and Juliet: Verona.

Much Ado About Nothing: Messina.

Taming of the Shrew: Padua.

Two Gentlemen of Verona: Verona.

Julius Caesar: Rome.

The Merchant of Venice: Venice.

Why do all old movies look like speeded up? Was it a camera-related problem?

My subject of research is dead, some people they know are still alive, but all were close to them.

The problem is that a number of parts of this person’s narrative are turning out to not be true. We are talking at the level of not actually serving in the military when they weaved in saying in the press they are a veteran as part of their narrative.

I now find myself doubting anything they said that cannot be verified. How do you handle this when writing about a subject that heavily padded their own narrative.

So, I'm familiar with how Pope Urban II, preached for the first crusades, post Byzantium's request for aid against the turks. However, as a lot of the subject matter surrounding the crusades is reflected from the Christian POV, what was going on in the middle east, to prompt the expansion into Byzantium in the first place?

Hey y'all, it's pretty obvious that the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John, which were canonized, were relatively widely known and circulated amongst early Christians in the first few centuries CE, but I was wondering how widely circulated were the gospels that wouldn't be canonized by orthodox Christianity, like the gospel of Thomas, Judas, or Mary Magdalene. Were there any 'orthodox' Christians who followed them prior to official canonization of the New testament. Sorry if this question is a bit jumbled I'm pretty new to the topic. Thanks!

Good morning Historians. I have a question regarding the historical usage of flair on this sub.

Many times I am excited to see multiple comments on an intriguing question. Only to have my hopes dashed to find out they have all been deleted. I understand the reason for the removal of these comments. I was wondering if this sub has used in the past, or considered using flair to identify unanswered/answered questions.

I realize this is a minor inconvenience with everything that is going on in the world, I just thought this was a good idea, and wondered if it had ever been used or maybe suggest it should be used.

Have a very pleasant day!

Marcus Terrentius Varro wrote, in De Re Rustica in the 1st book in the 10th chapter, that "vorsum" was a unit of length used in Campania, and that in their language "vor" means "hundred" and that "sum" means "feet". Which language was that?

I believe it was Etruscan. What other language could it be? Clearly it wasn't Latin or Greek, since Latin word for "hundred" was "centum" and Greek was "hekaton". Perhaps it was Illyrian (Messapian), but I think the Illyrian word for "hundred" would have been something similar to the Indo-European root *k^(j)mtom, rather than "vor". It probably wasn't Phoenician either, as Phoenician was closely related to Hebrew, and Hebrew word for "hundred" was "meha".

The main thesis of Guns, Germs and Steel is how our environment shapes our societal evolutionary trajectory and the main thesis of Why Nations Fail (more generally Acemoglu's work) is that geography has little to no influence on the way societes evolve but rather institutions are the key factor.

Acemoglu gives the example of North/South Korea to illustrate how geography is not a significant factor but also has other published works in which he details how African societes evolved with regards to the colonial period and demonstrate that being closer to the equator does not play a significant role.

Are these two contradictory or am I reducing them too much to allow them to coexist ?

Thanks

Edit: thank you so much for your answers everyone, I'll try to read them all and answer if I have any contribution to make

I have come across the term stagflation that is used a lot to refer to the 1970s, a period where there was stagnant growth in the economy/ies, accompanied by persisitantly high rates of inflation, but do not know much about why this seemed to be a common thing amongst a number of different nations- including the US,UK and even the USSR.

Why?

Some background: I got into some dispute with a guy that claimed that Spain controlled all of South America, to which I obviously responded that Portugal controlled parts of South America as well. His reply thus was that the only reason Portugal was even able to conquer Brazil was because of the treaty of Tordesillas.

Now my argument would be that this was actually the other way around and that the treaty of Tordesillas was actually the reason Spain (or rather Castille/Aragon) got a de jure claim on South America and not the other way around, since the preceeding treaty of Alcáçovas gave Portugal claim on all undiscovered land south of the Canary Islands.

Now I am not a historian and I am not too familiar with the time period and the parties involved. So maybe someone with more experience could shed some light on this issue: Am I right in my assumption, that before the treaty of Tordesillas all of South America would have been a claim of Portugal and that only the treaty of Tordesillas enabled "Spain" to colonize in South America?

Thank you for your inputs.

PS: Obviously leaving away the fact that there were alreay established states/kingdoms/tribes in South America and they were never asked for their opinion.

Did any veterans of the First World War write or give interviews in which they discussed the Second World War? What did they think of it?

There is no section in the recommended reading list for the Balkans, particularly the nations of former Yugoslavia. I'm interested in the time period starting with the dissolution of Ottoman power to the Yugoslav wars.

What books give a good overview of this time?

My concern is mostly with the armor itself. From what I have read about it, it was basically a thick fabric tube which rested on the hips with shoulder guards slung over from behind to stop it from turning around. The nature of the armor makes it sound pretty inflexible and constrictive. While I know that other historical armors were capable of being worn by women without much difficulty and with no need for alterations, Linothorax armor comes across as a unique case.

Just for some context:

I am a 3D character artist with a great deal of interest in Ancient Greek and Roman warfare. I am trying to design a "realistic" depiction of Athena. Being the goddess of war, I thought it only natural that she would be equipped much like a Hoplite would. However, instead of going the typical boob plate armor or something form fitting, I though I would try my luck at something more historical.

The broadest sense I'm curious about parenting kids (0-12) and how that differs from modern conceptions of parenting. If I'm being more specific, I'm interested in Western Europe in the 14th century, but I'll settle for any sources from the period regardless of the region since I assume they're scant to begin with.

Did the Byzantine Empire during the medieval times have any connection to the Roman Empire? I mean it was called the Eastern Roman Empire but did it have a Roman vibe to it? I mean like in Ancient Rome.Did they have legions,centuries and was their culture connected to the Roman Empire in any way?