My understanding is that Andreas Palaiologos, the theoretical successor to the Byzantine throne, willed his imperial titles to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, but that the two never really utilised or aknowledged the titles in any meaningful way. Assuming that Spain would not look kindly upon the Ottoman conquest of Byzantium, and wanting to capitialise on the Fall of Granada, why would the Spanish never adopt these titles even in a symbolisc fashion. Considering that many of the other European powers, including a few of their rivals, were ready to spring on any even tangential claims to the title, why would Spain not even really aknowlege the act?

In modern Western media the Waffen-SS typically get depicted as 'elite' units when compared to your average Heer soldier, but is there any truth to that?

So I’ve been trying to research the Utah beach landing and I’ve noticed that there isn’t a lot of specific details in articles online. Every single one mentions that Utah was the “easiest of the d-day beaches to capture, with little German resistance.” None of them mention how many German forts were still standing, how the soldiers destroyed the forts or just any overall specifics of the landing. I know it’s a very broad question, I was just hoping for any sort of information on the conditions and resistance of charging up the beach in the first wave.

The question may be America centric, and I admittedly don't know whether European white nationalists tend to be Protestant or Catholic, but it strikes me that the Ku Klux Klan are playing around with Christian Crusader imagery right? I mean they refer to themselves as knights.

I've been doing some reading tonight trying to disentangle all the historical threads and it's very convoluted and confusing - it seems like the Freemasons are supposed to be the heirs to the Knights Templar but the Freemasons are typically Protestant, so why was it not a bigger problem for them to start adopting Catholic iconography?

And of course in the last 5 years or so the "unite the right" movement has gone buckwild appropriating all sorts of medieval Crusader iconography- is this just a screen for contemporary white nationalism to use Crusader imagery and then claim that it can't possibly be white nationalism because the KKK hated Catholics?

Definitely seems that more modern organizations that have claimed affinity with the Knights Templar are racist organizations so maybe anti-Catholicism is specific to the KKK and not necessarily a part of white native as such?

Any insights would be appreciated thanks!

After the conquest of Constantinople the Turks renamed the city and made it their capitol. Was it ever besieged afterwards?

While reading the Wikipedia article on Mackenzie King, I read in the 2nd paragraph that: "During the Second World War, he carefully avoided the battles over conscription, patriotism and ethnicity that had divided Canada so deeply in the First World War".

What kind of political battles over ethnicity was going on during WWII?

The Germans were well aware that the British had radar, and they knew from experience that they could put radars on night fighters (110, Ju 88). Why did they believe the British propaganda saying that carrots gave good eyesight?

Urho Kekkonen, a man of whom I essentially know nothing about and just read about, seems to have played an enormous role in the shaping of modern Finland. He stands out among most other European leaders at this time, due to his stubborn ability to keep Finland politically independent from the USSR and even at times threatening to refuse to back certain Soviet aspirations. How has his presidency shaped Finland as we know it today?

I understand helmets were phased out with the rest of armor after the 17th century because firearms made hard armor largely irrelevant - though some cavalry continued to use or revived the use of armor during the Napoleonic Wars. Cuirassiers, dragoons with elaborately plumed helmets, etc.

But I was thinking about the typical uniform of an infantryman of the Napoleonic era and I know that the stiffened shako cap was thought to be something of a protection to cavalry sabers attacking from above. Is this a post hoc justification for a fashion choice? Would metal helmets have been beneficial to infantrymen of the period? If so, were they ever tried?

I was told in high school by my history teacher that this movie was described by actual D-Day veterans as the most accurate representation of the events of that day that had ever been made into a film. What I don't understand is why they would launch those boats that open from the front onto a beach that was so heavily protected by belt fed machine guns and concrete bunkers. Why wouldn't they have carpet bombed the entire area before hand? Did the boats need to open from the front? Why in God's name would they attempt a frontal assault in a beach so heavily guarded?

Edit: Spelling and slight clarification.

I was wondering how nomads (e.g. Mongols, Huns or Scythians) got access to metals like bronze, iron or gold. Since they were nomads they probably did not settle down around mines like sedentary peoples? One way is of course trade, but did they have other means to gather these resources?

From reading about the losses suffered by the Royal Navy during the Falklands War, one gets the impression that there was a lack of adequate air defences, outside of the shielding Sea Harrier force. It surprised me that I then read ships were armed with air defence systems such as Sea Wolf. Given the number of ships damaged or sunk, were these air defence systems viewed as failing or inadequate at the time?

This might be a really dumb question, but did Kings and such ever try to fortify their castles with iron "bricks" or even early iron beams? Was it just a matter of not knowing how to smelt larger pieces of iron or a cost thing?

I think nowadays, when people study orientalism, it’s mainly a focus on MENA, India, China etc. But considering the Balkans, up until the later half of the 1800s, was dominated by the Ottoman Empire(considered an Oriental State), was it excluded from the socio-cultural definitions of Europe at that time? Would the Balkans(even as independent nations) be considered European in the same way Great Britain, France, or Poland were?

I ask this question because in Dracula, Romania seems to be depicted as this far-away, mystical place, much in the same way areas outside of Europe were, despite Romania being a “European, Christian Country”.

The ship apparently had a maximum passenger capacity of 2,453 passengers. From what I understand, the owners of the Titanic were keen on highlighting how impressive and grand the ship was. Much attention was given to its size and luxuriousness.

However, the total number of passengers on Titanic's ill-fated maiden voyage was only 1,317 people - over 1,110 fewer than it's max capacity. Why was this the case?

Obviously, it is a good thing in retrospect that the ship was not filled to capacity. But I would think the maiden voyage of a ship as notorious as the Titanic would have been sold out- or at least close to it. Why wasn't it?

I know Japanese expansion was somewhat born of desperation rather than concrete goals, but I'm curious as to what Japanese ideologues and political/military leaders thought Asia should look like after they had won, what challenges they thought they would face, the extent of their ambitions, how they would keep subject countries from rebelling and what purpose they envisioned for the Co-Prosperity Sphere. Thank you!

Am I invited to secret meetings about this weeks in advance? Am I simply following orders on the day? Do any of my co-workers protest this coup d'état?

Expanding the question further, how does it work later in the empire during the Crisis of the Third Century? How much notice do I as a Praetorian Guard generally have that we’re about to assassinate our boss?