Marco Polo gives us an account of China as seen from the perspective of a westerner. Are there any instances of the reverse? That is, travelers from lands foreign to the medieval west (the middle east, north africa, maybe even Byzantium) that would show us what an outsiders perspective on western christendom looked like?

I’ve been looking for some good answers to this question but have had trouble finding a good answer. I know there was a mass movement in rebuilding and cleaning up cities after the end of WWII, but what was done during the war? Were there military assigned people or civilians? After a battle was won was there still issues of clearing out the enemy?

My history teacher said that the native didn't know what land ownership was or how trade worked, and that that was how the Europeans tricked them out of their territory. This seems kinda sus to me

Could someone here help me to know when was the name Yeshua translated to Jesus in Modern English? Is Jesus mentioned in any literary works?

Did the various horrific medical experiments performed by both the imperial Japanese and the Nazis result in anything of medical value? Did they make any important discovers that proved medically or scientifically useful or important after the war like was the case for much of there advanced weapons experiments? Or Was it all just pointless cruelty for the sake of it?

Sorry if this isn't the right form for a question, but my Google-Fu is failing me at finding info for a specific English battle.

English on both sides, where both sides were waiting for a powerful Lord to choose who to join, but instead of choosing they stayed on the sidelines until the battle was more or less decided, then joined the winner.

I remember learning about on a Great Histories course about the English... But the English seemed to have fought each other a lot and this isn't one of the more famous battles.

Hello Historians !
I am a 1st semester student of history and I am currently writing my exam on the use and decline of mercenaries, specifically Landsknechts, in european armies during the 17th century. However, I'm having trouble finding primary sources. The focus of my assignment is the view common people, clergy, nobility etc. had on mercenaries and why they still chose to use them. (It is my understanding that mercenaries were seen as vile, corrupted, godless men only interested in coin). Any help, analysis, comments etc. will be greatly appreciated. To be clear, I am asking for references to primary sources or any and all help in regards to the use of mercenaries in europe in the 17th century.
For Konge og Fædreland!

Most of Eastern Europe saw pro-soviet regimes installed and joined the Warsaw Pact; yet Finland, right on the USSR's border, a repeated thorn in their side during the war and occupying a strategically useful position on the Baltic, escaped this fate and maintained a precarious independence. Why did Stalin not push for the installation of a puppet regime here also? Was he prevented by the US/UK in some manner, or were other factors at play?

One of my first 'experiences' of WWI was the black and white adaptation of All Quiet On the Western Front. One of the scenes that shaped how I viewed trench warfare was the charge and counter charge where both sides seemingly get mown down to a man. As I learn more and more about the horrors of the war, I am actually surprised that more people weren't killed considering the myriad of ways to die. Figures like '1 in 10 of the regiment were killed' are reported with an air of despair about them. I hear them and think "How was it that low when they were charging machine guns, rapid firing rifles, barbed wire, mud, shrapnel, tanks, gas and aircraft while also dealing with rats, trench foot, malnutrition, PTSD, low morale and such?" I expected figures more on the ratio of 7 out of 10 being killed or even higher.

Early 20th Italy was monarchy, then how socialists and communists get legal position?

Italian Socialist Party was even largest party at 1919 general election.

I wonder why Italian government does not illegalized them at that time.

Perhaps they could’ve gone through the Monaco/Nice area and avoided the Alps? As an alternative question, if there was no avoiding a landing in northern France, why did they bother with Italy?

Growing up in Ontario in the 1990s, the local Orange Lodge was just another local service club. They ran a burger booth at the local fair and donated money to community causes.

However, I'm aware that earlier in their history they were a powerful political force and engaged in anti-catholic violence.

How did they get from one to the other?

I know that they were related to the Aztecs but are there any remaining individuals who practice the beliefs of this culture? For those related to these people, would I refer to them as Mexicans ? I apologize for my ignorance, I’m sort of going off my understanding of the Incas and how I refer to their descendants as Peruvians.

Currently watching “The White Queen” and the issue of guardianship has come up several times. Currently the young Prince of Wales is being sent away to be raised by a male guardian while both his parents are alive. I’ve seen this take place in other historical pieces as well, and I’m so curious as to the origins and reasons for this custom.

This is a two part question. 1: Why aren’t the Dutch considered Nordic, they’re extremely close to Scandinavia in terms of culture, and at one point were a part of Denmark (I will admit ignorance as to what constitutes a Nordic state, and I do understand immigration and the movement of people contribute).

2: Why haven’t the Dutch been recognised as having Viking ancestry. It’s well documented that the Frisians played a relatively large role in the Viking sphere, they were known for their boat building ability, and even accompanied the Danes in raids on England - is that not the definition of Viking? They were also pagan and worshipped the Germanic Gods (This is a given since they were Germanic in origin). This is information I’ve picked up over a period of time, but could be wrong and would love to learn more.

I hope the question I’m asking is pretty straightforward, But I want to ask about Japans militarization and how deep it ran, I know that a lot of the military personnel were either fanatical in forcefully establishing their idealized japan on the world stage or complacent out of fear of the increasingly hostile environment the country was spiraling into. After the war, Many of Japan’s militaristic policies were undone due to Unconditional surrender and their own volition.

Except Hirohito wasn’t dethroned

I understand why they didn’t dethrone him strategically, America wanted a strong ally in the Pacific against communism who wasn’t alienated.

But I want to ask how involved Hirohito actually was in the war effort of japan and all the atrocities they committed in China. I heard he claimed that he was powerless in the Political sphere and was relegated to a mere symbol of the war, Which makes sense but yet again he also has a motive to divert as much blame from himself as possible.

So, Hirohito, Powerless monarch who was a slave to the war effort?

Blood thirsty emperor?

Or maybe a mix of both?

How involved was he in Japans war effort and politics?