Is there any evidence to show that back in medieval times (any other appropriate time or region in history) people actually believed dragons existed?

Did they fear attacks from possible nearby dragons?

Is there any evidence of historical politicians or leaders using the idea of dragons to instill fear and control in their followers? If so, did the leaders do so know that it was a myth?

I have this booklet that is entitled “The Photograph-Album of Atomic Bombed Hiroshima” full of photographs of Hiroshima and the victims of the bombing. It is signed by Kiyoshi Kikkawa twice, but I can’t find much about him online, other than that he survived the bomb. I was just curious if anyone had any more information about him?

I know that they never married, but did she have any reaction to his poems about her?

When I say American Indian reservations I'm specifically referring to federally recognized tribes with sovereign lands. Did tribal citizens report to a draft board from their tribe or did they have to go to whatever state their reservation was surrounded by? I assume that since all "American Indians" are citizens as of 1924, we were then subject to the draft.

1. Did Kansas and Arkansas come from the same language?
2. What does Kansas and Ar+Kansas mean in the original language(s)?
3. Why did the pronunciation of the final syllable diverge?
4. Why are syllables stressed differently in the two words (in American English)?

There is a tradition of fascists and conservatives (especially in Europe) clinging to their countries' traditional royal families as signs of order, tradition, and the divinely approved special mission of their nation. Fascist Italy and Japan retained their king and emperor respectively throughout WWII. In both cases, the monarchy was coopted by the fascist ruling party as a symbol of authority and their right to rule. Greece maintained its king during its experiences of fascism/military dictatorship. Franco did not allow a Spanish king to sit on the throne, but he importantly technically maintained the institution of the monarchy and invoked it when it suited him.

Yet Nazi Germany never restored the monarchy in even a symbolic form, despite the most recent German Emperor Wilhelm II being alive and well when the Nazis came to power. So why didn't the Nazis ever restore and coopt the monarchy like other fascist movements were doing?

As the title says, I'm interested in that timeline and in both countries, thanks in advance.

From my understanding the Eastern Roman Empire considered Charlemagne to be a client king that was nominally under the banner of allegiance to the Roman Empire and considered him to be a usurper and illegitimate emperor when Pope Leo III crowned him as "Emperor of the Romans" in the year 800 AD. I was also taught that the Eastern Roman Empire would attack and try to dethrone usurpers whenever they popped up. So why didn't the Eastern Roman Empire make a large scale effort to invade Francia and dethrone Charlemagne?

Like, r/atetheonion, but with satire written by a historical figure rather than by The Onion.

Considered to be the single deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima in World War II and the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Armed Forces since the first day of the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War. My question is how come the US never retailiated the same way it did to 9/11?

I've seen a lot of big criticisms of biography from different types of scholars. The arguments go beyond the idea that, "There are certain types of stories that cannot be told in biography form", to the realm of "Reading biographies hurts your historical understanding of events." This comes down to the limited viewpoint, the overemphasis on one person's reaction to any particular event, and how a story has to be structured to fit within the purview of somebody's "life story".

Obviously some biographies are better than others and take more risks with the format. Robert Caro's Means of Ascent for instance has "The Dam" chapter which diverges from the main narrative to set up the circumstances of LBJ's central political conflict.

My question to you fine, historical folk though is what are your opinions on the biographical format? Do we only like it because it engages the storytelling, non-historical side of our brains? Should biography ever be recommended to people who are serious about understanding history?

Thanks!

I'm especially interested on how it was organized before, during and after the Civil War (1642-1651). In history class we are studying the 17th century. We saw how the Swedish army begun to organize itself more similarly to modern standards, with trained soldiers instead of normal people or mercenaries. So I would like to know how the English army changed its organization with the advent of capitalism and the Civil War.

so according to some perople and articles cyrus the great was a benovelent ruler and some say was the 1st humanitarian and that he abolished slavery and such. but i find it a bit hard to belive that an empire as big as the one cyrus had made could run without slaves.

I am curious about what would happen with peasants/serfs in the surrounding land associated with the castle when it was being attacked. If food and resources were taken from them over the course of a siege, for example, was it done with violence?

Thank you in advance for any replies.

When did the area come under Chinese control? Which dynasty did this happen under? How did it happen?

​