Hello all! I am trying to find any information regarding a letter from St. Bernard to Abbot Suger of Saint Denis about a duel between Lord Robert (of Deux), King Louis VII's brother and Lord Henry (son of the count [Thibaut II of Champagne]) following the Second Crusade. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

It is a well known story that due to an organised evacuation of Denmark's Jews to Sweden and the intercession of the Danish Government on behalf of Danish Jews in concentration camps, 99% of the Danish Jewish population survived the Holocaust. However, I have never been able to pin down WHY this happened. From the highest levels of government down to low ranking civil servants and fishermen, Danes, with exceptions, actively cooperated with the evacuation and protected the Jews. What was special about Denmark which led to this organised and successful effort when other other occupied European countries failed so utterly?

My understanding is that they were settled and established almost simultaneously (with Oregon being slightly earlier). I would have expected maybe a difference of 5 to 10 years between each being granted statehood (since Portland was founded 6 years before Seattle), not 30 years.

Just asking because even thought I'm not a scholar, I like to know about history and politics.

Does anyone know books which are about the role of the media in the Vietnam war? (Dutch or English books) I need it for research I need to do for school. Thanks in advance!

How did Islam arrive in Indonesia? When did the Indonesians start converting? Was it spread due to invasion, Arab settlers or something? I'd like to know everything about this subject thank you. Please tell me other notable things about this

With Trump trying to throw out multiple states votes for the election it got me thinking, had that ever happened before? Like has a state’s election not been counted in the electoral votes? It seems unlikely to me as that would have a range of implications but I can’t find any information on it besides what’s currently going on.

I remember reading in James Campbell's essay "Was it infancy in England", that traditionally historians, implicitly or explicitly, assumed that there weren't any Jews in pre-1066 England on the presumption that late Anglo-Saxon England was too economically backward to have any need for Jewish credit. Since the 1970s that position has become increasingly untenable - 10th and early 11th century England seems to have been above the Western European average in terms of urbanisation and to have had an already very monetised economy and thriving trade with Flanders and Ottonian Germany - and so as Campbell suggests, there must have been some kind of royal decree preventing Jews from coming in that William the Conqueror and his successors revoked that simply hasn't survived to us. Still, there's no way of proving that so what are the other possible explanations for the apparent absence of Jews in pre-Norman England. Then there's also the question of whether there were any Jews in Roman Britain, given that there were quite a few Jewish communities in Gaul and trends in recent scholarship have also argued that Roman Britain, especially in the 4th century AD, was a lot more cosmopolitan and a lot less of an underdeveloped imperial periphery than historians have traditionally assumed. If there were, then why did they apparently disappear after the Roman legions left.

• What happened to the equipment?
• Did soldier had to go through new trainings?
• How different were the two armies? was "ideologial" re-education required?
• What happened to the higher ups?

Discussion of foodstuffs and the Columbian Exchange typically focuses on trans-Atlantic trade, following the introduction of plants like potatoes and tomatoes to Europe, and the flow of livestock to the New World.

Did the globalization of food resources dramatically alter or influence cuisine in communities across the Pacific Ocean?

Thanks in advance!

I saw something on an alt history forum that stated than one of the reasons the bronze age and iron age was so different between the Americas and Europe was that the Americas had many copper deposits while Europe had few but the Americas had few tin deposits while Europe had many.

I have also heard that apparently the Inca were experimenting with iron upon the arrival of the Spanish and that the pacific coast cultures had iron.

I would like to know if there is any validity to this and if there are any good sources for this?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

What's the history behind this change in the way Hanukkah is viewed? When did it go from being a minor holiday to one of the few that gentiles recognize? Where did the whole presents thing come from - is it from gelt? Or is it because Jewish kids were jealous of their Christian neighbors every December?

I'm really struggling to find a good history of Argentina in English. My ideal history would:

- Focus on economics

- Ideally have an update for Macri's time in office

- Be in English

​

Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks

I suppose this is more of a meta /Historiographical question but I think this is the perfect community to answer this. How viable is a career in history, and while on the topic, how has the role of historians developed through out history? Have historians always been valued in their society or is that a more recent development? Or perhaps was there a case where historians were appricated more in the past?

I've read John McPhee's *liberty or death * and listened to the revolutions podcast but I'm still unclear about why there was never any Royalist uprising from within the French army.

I understand that there was a fear of the army crushing Paris early on, a whole lot of French officers ended up emigrating and that problems with Bourbon loyalties in the army, like officers say wearing a Bourbon uniform, was a common problem from time to time long after the assembly took control of the country but the army never led any kind of armed revolt.

Eventually the problem solved itself as the army became filled with post revolutionary soldiers but I don't understand why no general ever successfully martched on Paris before then.

(Dumouriez is the only attempt I remember but this is quite late by thinking. Why not earlier than him.)

Hi there, I just finished reading Irving's book 'Churchill's Book'. As much as I dislike Irving as a person, the book is very well written, enjoyable and after double-checking parts, it seems well researched (Besides the focus, which seems to be pure speculation rather than fact). From a historian's point of view, can you trust anything he wrote, is he still referenced by historians? Btw, I am not defending Irving, but I am aware of his Holocaust record and tho much of what he has written seems to be nonsense, some things he has said have been backed by Franciszek Piper and other scholars. But back to the question, what do Historians think of Irving?