May I ask why the order of the Jesuits is held in such disdain?

Is it just down to the role they played in the counter reformation and thus a cultural bias that began in Tudor England or is there something more?

I have noted many videos and commentaries that cite "the Jesuits" but there is never any context.

I appreciate any anticipated elucidation.

How did the CoE and cannon law go from being created in order to let Henry VIII marry and divorce at-will, to (essentially) forcing Edward VII to abdicate in order to marry a divorcee?

I really want to know the history of my area. I live in Oakland and really want to get to know all forms of history here. I feel like I have got a pop history / scratching the surface version. I am really sorry to ask you all but I can't phrase it well enough to get source material. Anyhow, I don't expect much in reply but some words on how to do this better in the future would be appreciated. As a point of reference I am mostly into first hand knowledge and works, not collected stuff.

Charles Darwin is famous for saying, "[a] scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone". However, whenever I learned about Darwin from secondary sources, there is always great mention of his passionate love for specific organisms like worms. He kept collections, he gardened, etc. That sounds like the behavior of someone who has tremendous affection for the natural world. So did Darwin change his mind? Was he being oblivious and hypocritical? Was he commenting on how scientists should be and not on what they often are (nerds)? Or something else entirely? I've never read this quote in it's original context and would love to hear from someone who has done primary research into Darwin's life.

I'm currently writing an essay on Caesar's justification for going to war against Pompeius. I have written a bit based on his own writings (commentarii de bello civili), but I would also like some more ancient sources besides Caesar himself. Do you guys know of any specific writings (if they are available online, that would be great too) commenting on either Caesar's casus belli or their own reason for opposing him? It could be Cicero, Pompeius, Scipio, anyone of prominence really. I don't much care if it is from letters, speaches, whatever, as long as it is some new perspective for me to discuss. Can you guys help me out?

A question that has been in the back of my mind for sometime now. Obviously throughout our storied and bloodied history, there have been many instances of confused and drastic hand-to-hand combat between forces similar in uniform (I say uniform here meaning an actual military dress or just basic peasant clothes) and physical appearance.

Factoring into consideration night time battles, smoke, fog, and mud, were there any established methods of discerning friend from foe between individual combatants during a heated melee? Do you know of any battlefield commanders who took this problem into account?

My frame of reference for this question comes from thinking about how Japanese samurai would sometimes fight with the flag of their lord attached to themselves. Whether to show their power or for some other reason, this definitly would have had an effect on reducing friendly fire incidents, blue-on-blue incidents. I wonder if there were ever any sort of concious consideration of this issue on other battle fronts across the globe.

I was reading the Historiography of Alexander the Great on wikipedia, and it mentions several contemporary sources. However those contemporary sources has been lost to us. How does historians know that they existed in the first place?

In ancient times, or even after that, was at any point Korea a part of China? I’ve noticed a lot of similarities between the neighboring countries, more so than for example China and Japan or even Korea and Japan. So, I wonder, with Korea being so small in comparison to its neighboring China, did the Chinese empire or dynasties ever try to annex/conquer Korea, and did they ever succeed?

Hi, I'm a high/middle school history teacher and I'm always thinking this when teaching Ancient Egypt. It strikes me that the inclusion of Egypt in Western Civ courses has a lot to do with co-opting African culture or Orientalism on the part of Europeans rather than a true legacy the way Rome or Greece has (I'm aware their are connections to Greece in particular, but it's rarely included) . I'm curious if any thinkers have explored the awkard Orientalist nature of Ancient Egypt in Western History.

If there is a genuine connection to Western Civ, than why do most textbooks focus on the exotic and different, rather than the connections to the present the way we do with Rome and Greece.

I recently started learning about the Bronze Age. I am keen to learn more about how prosperous these times were and about how diplomacies and international relationships between countries were established. I heard how disputes were fixed by treaties rather than wars for the first time in human history. I would like to know more about these subjects and about how it could be that these countries were so civilized yet fell one by one.

So my question to you is;

What are some documentaries, movies, books or anything else where I could learn more?

If possible, easy to digest because I'm a beginner in learning about history and will be doing it by myself (and I am not a native English speaker either).

I recently finished reading Charles Pellegrino's recent Farewell, Titanic and the 1955 'classic' A Night to Remember by Walter Lord.

My question is about Lightoller. It seems he became a hero at Dunkirk, but I am wondering if his 'questionable' actions during the sinking of the Titanic (which seem to be emphasised in later sources) were well known in the aftermath/years after the disaster.

Were his actions at Dunkirk a redemption of sorts? Or were his dubious actions (like interpreting Smith's directive for strictly women and children first, or opening extra avenues for water to invade the vessel) something that was only negatively attributed him much later.

From Pellegrino's account I came away with an extremely negative impression of Lightoller, and I am wondering if this was a relatively recent position in the scholarship or if this was the impression many had for most of the 20th century.

​

*edit* I should mention, I listened to most of Pellegrino's book over the christmas holiday period and much of it while heading off to bed so if my impression of Lightoller is harsh or misplaced then I am more than happy to be informed to the contrary

Have been doing some reading about the modern anti war movements against the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq. I was wondering if there are any example of this in the ancient world or even medieval world. I have read about a lot of very costly wars but haven’t heard anything about any anti war movements and was wondering if it’s because they didn’t exist

I was playing Ghost of Tsushima, where there's a subplot where a Japanese archery master defects to the Mongols intending to teach them the secrets of Japanese archery. Ignoring the various issues of the ethnicity of the invaders in that game, I found the general notion amusing in its implausibility, as I recall reading that Japanese bows of this era were seriously underpowered compared to the composite bows that the Mongols used (though I imagine better suited to the humid Japanese climate).

However, I don't think I got that from a super reliable source on Japanese history, and I know matters of archery and bowyering are always contentious, so I'd be interested to know what the record tells us of Japanese bows and archery in the 13th century.

Loaded title understandably, but I am inquiring about the writing process in regards to a biopic about a relative (grandfather) who has a very unique story (he was of the first class of men drafted during the peacetime draft in 1940). I have my masters degree, have written extensive papers before but never a whole book. We possess all of his memoirs - letters, invites to parties celebrating his draft class (as I said, literally the first), his battalion movements tracing from Normandy to Berlin, pamphlets, photos, you name it. I have a concept as to how to approach it in my head, but figured I’d reach out to the pros for advice on your processes and how you might approach drafting a work like this. Any advice or help is appreciated.

For example, other claims he makes are:

• Married women owned no property, all property they had before the marriage would be transferred to their husbands.
• Women had almost no legal rights over their children, they were by law the husbands children. Even if the husband died, custody of the children was determined by his legal will, not automatically given to the wife.
• It was incredibly hard for women to legally separate from their husbands, and if they unofficially separated the husband could force her to return or subsume her wages.

Bonus question: How does this compare to the legal (and practical) status of women in France?

In general, would love to have any recommendations on books or papers to read that deal with this topic in England or France.

So, from what I know (or think I know) American high command tought that to end the war soon without taking more casualties in an invasion of mainland Japan the best option was to use the bombs.

It seems fairly reasonable to me and almost excusable. What I find difficult to understand and makes the bombings inexcusable in most people's eyes was that instead of a military or naval base, which would display the power of the bombs without as many casualties, they decided to nuke cities full of civilians without (AFAIK) any warning or sign that they would.

So my question boils down to, was there a specific reason(s) they decided to nuke cities?

There's a lot of conspiracies about freemasons (and really any other secret society) and how they have started wars and revolutions and have done this and that basically painting them as some kind of society of super villains watching from the shadows.

However when it comes to actual evidence and or sources for these claims there's usually none other than hearsay.

I've even heard masons say they're just normal guys and that no lodge was ever really that powerful.

So what have they really done and why did the big bad mason myth start?