I'm currently interested in the third crusade and in Saladin. I found a lot about sources which picture how he was seen before the third crusade by the Christians and before the conquest of Jerusalem. My question is now are there any good sources about Saladin from the times during the third crusade, like chronics or stuff like this which might can explain our todays view on him?

People of European heritage are especially prone to skin cancers. Studies have suggested that even a few sun burns in your lifetime can increase your risk of future skin cancer by a large amount.

So, why doesn't it seem like skin cancer was that common in the past? Wouldn't working all day outside lead to a lot of sun exposure and high risks of skin cancer?

Did armies in those places wear heavy suits of armour? How did they do it in such hot and humid climates?

What was their logistics like?

What kind of tactics did they use especially considering the very impenetrable terrain of jungles, swamps and mangroves?

Any books or links would be nice.

I’m trying to dive more into my limited Irish heritage and I’m having trouble wrapping my head around the fight for Irish independence. It seems scattered and borderline unsuccessful when compared with other revolutions against the British monarchy i.e. the American revolution. Is this an accurate view? Is the Irish struggle even a revolution? Did they succeed? Further reading suggestions would be appreciated as well. Thanks and happy St. Patrick’s Day!

So it's relatively well known that vikings were well-kempt based on hygeine products found and some sources state that they bathed more regularly than other Europeans...

Is there evidence of how well their living arrangements were kept?

Did their apparent personal hygeine standards extend to their living environment with designated trash areas and the like?

It was composed primarily of (I think) Greek-speaking Orthodox Greeks. But talking to modern Greeks, my impression is that it is not today thought of historical Greece in the same way that Athens 300BC is. While many Greeks argue that Cyprus is Greek, I don't see them arguing that today's eastern Turkey or Antioch is part of what should be Greece because it was ruled by the Byzantine Empire.
I'm not arguing it should be; all nationalism and national histories are somewhat arbitrary. I'm just interested in why (and correct me if I'm wrong) Greek nationalism seems to see modern Greece as the descendant of ancient Athens, Sparta, Corinth and Thebes, but not so much the Eastern Roman Empire.

I'm not a Greek nor do I live in Greece, so feel free to correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

So recently this has gotten a lot of attention and I was wondering how accurate is it for politicians to be describing the filibuster as primarily a conservative ploy. How often have democrats historically used the filibuster? Are both parties equally guilty of using it to bog down the govt? I'm aware of the distinction of the Jim Crow era filibuster led by southern states, but wan't a more complete understanding.

Additionally, it seems the canal is a distinct diagonal shape that breaks off from the Elbe river, why not start the canal near Hamburg and then finish it nearby in Lubeck? This seems to be a shorter and less labor intensive route.

I'm currently reading Susan Wise Bauer's "The History of the..." [World in all times, basically], and I am absolutely floored by the variation and intermingling and constant warring and invasions and destruction of what starts as clans and tribes and morphs into countries and kingdoms and empires... If your DNA ancestry test says you're Italian, does that mean you're Etruscan or Latin or Visigoth or Ostrogoth or Vandal or Greek or Phoenician or Lombard or Hun or Thracian or Celt or Gaul or ...??? All of these peoples (and more) at one time or another occupied the Italian peninsula at one point or another for the last 7,000+ years and ALSO occupied like everywhere else in Europe at varying times. What does it even mean, then, to be "Italian" and how does your DNA reflect that? Thank you.

In about the 1400s-1600s, in a feudal Japanese village, who would be the person that ran the town and solved problems the town was having, such as hiring outsiders for jobs and such?

Any help is appreciated!

Recently my cousin and I were having a speculative and conjectural discussion about the nature of battles, specifically the temporal aspect. I brought up that I had read an article a while ago that suggested the notion that while infantry was "engaged" in combat, that is to say, that two lines of battle had met and remained at close quarters. A relatively small amount of time was spent actually getting to grips with and attempting to kill the enemy, compared to the length of time that the troops would be seen to be "engaged" with each other.

More specifically what was suggested was that two sides would advance and upon contact, there would be a short period of intense combat wherein the majority of the men in the front lines would be engaged with their opponents within the stinking distance. Following this, there would necessarily be a break in the combat, where the majority of time spent by men at the front, would be out of the striking distance. The reasoning being that; a) physically, a human, cant endure the physical exertion of close combat for more than maybe 10-20 mins, b) Psychologically a human mind does not support the ability to be in mortal danger for extended periods of time, but can, with the help of certain reflexes and adrenaline, engage in shorts spurts of violence and risk-taking behavior and c) after the initial period of combat the space between to formations would be littered with some corpses and immobilised wounded. To support the first two points that article invoked the mechanics and psychology of combat sports such as boxing and MMA; bouts lasting in the order of minutes wherein the actual violence comes in a flurry of blows rather than an extended slugfest.

The article suggested that the side which may have come of worse in the initial engagement may give ground and appear to be pushed back but would do so whist facing the opposition and without breaking ranks. After this extended period of non-combat, the sides would reengage and another comparatively short period of violence would ensue. This would give the appearance of continual engagement to an observer who would go on to write primary source material about a particular battle.

I thought that the above was a reasonable argument and logically bore out, I play a sport with moderate physical contact to a reasonably high level (by no means an elite athlete) and so can really appreciate the argument that it is impossible that men at the front of infantry lines spent hours engaged in an activity which required exertion on the level of a rugby scrum.

My cousin was very quick to denounce this stance, particularly the mention of Psychology in the article was something which he turned his nose up at, he is a final year Classics student. He argues that the sources and archeology don't bear this out. He suggested that I and the article were overlooking that in reality, it takes a very long time to kill a skilled opponent who is armed and armored and is doing everything they can to avoid being killed. The above point I conceded was probably true but I pointed out that this didn't necessitate that two formations of troops were continually grinding into one another. He then said that there are sources that report similar drills undergone in training by both Spartan youths and Roman soldiers, where two formations would be arrayed against one another equipped with shields and would come together and push against each other for extended periods, In an attempt to cultivate the ability to physically engage with the enemy for a prolonged time.

I don't have any academic qualifications regarding history and so couldn't really refute these points but did counter that the Romans also spent hours hacking at wooden posts and marching around drill squares, neither of which bear much resemblance to the reality of combat with an opposing formation, and were probably practiced to build stamina and muscle memory in the same way that training drills in modern sports and in the military don't always resemble the sport (footwork drills) or a battlefield scenario (log carry run).

I attempted to argue my point more and we sort of got lost in the semantics of it "we'll it really depends on how you define a battle" ect... and I had to concede as he sort of pulled rank on me with his academic background though he couldn't direct me to any sources off the top of his head.

I am wondering if there are any historians or history buffs out there who can point me in the direction of source material that supports either of our positions.

TLDR: Article suggests that actual fighting took up very little time in battle. I agree, Classicist cousin disagrees but cant present much good evidence for the contrary. I refuse to believe soldiers could spend periods of hours engaged in hand-to-hand fighting.

Does anyone have any statistics to evidence the stability of the Reichsmark currency? Finding it very difficult to demonstrate the stability of the new currency following its issue. Statistics on purchasing power of the RM between the years 1924-29 would be absolutely perfect.

I don't have the permission to upload the PDF, but my question is the English translation was done from the Arabic translation of the Greek texts by Thabit ibn Qurra.

What happened to the original Greek text. How did they get lost/destroyed?

I am interested in how ancient Europeans viewed things like trees (which we would consider living organisms). Is there a feel of how Indo-european viewed live/dead things?

Is there a difference Indo and non-Indo religions in ancient Europe?

Hi.

I want to know how much meth was actually taken in from the Germany army.

How regular was the consumption? Was it EVERY soldier? Was it throughout the whole day, 7 days a week? Was it throughout the whole war or was there a shortage?

Why didn't the Vietnamese set up a communist government in Cambodia after Pol Pot following the invasion of Vietnam into Cambodia?

One fairly controversial subject that comes up from time to time on various threads is if and how the Soviet Union was a democracy. There seem to be surprisingly few online sources on it, but from there it's often described as a kind of "bottom-up" democracy. How did this actually function in practice, and did Soviet citizens actually have much influence on the policy that affected their daily lives?

I understand that the Normans came as conquerers, conquered Neustria and then made it Normandy. Normandy then eventually conquered England and began the Angevin Empire.

However my question is, why did France never rename Normandy back to Neustria as a sort of anti Anglo act and pro french nationalism. "Normandy" immediately brings to mind the normans while Neustria is in of itself a very unique name that sounds like it would be more befitting for the French language.

So in short: Why did the French never revert Normandy back to the name Neustria?