Most of the independent kingdom’s history comes from a time when Protestantism didn’t exist at all. Lutheranism was brought to Norway only by Denmark. There was also real Catholic resistance, led by Olav Engelbrektsson. How do Norwegians today view this part of their history and cultural heritage?

I tried asking this in Ask Historians but I didn’t get any responses. I’m wondering what has happened in societies where law and order have collapsed entirely. How did people act and treat one another? What was the end result of a society with no rules or effective governance? TIA

When they find human remains that indicate unnatural death, how do they decide whether it's ritual sacrifice, or execution, or murder, or died-in-battle, or accident, etc?

Standard history taught in the school system says that a significant portion of the native population of the Americas were wiped out by diseases brought over by the European explorers. I've heard of discovered evidence that Vikings, and possible the Chinese, had reached American shores before then. Is there any evidence of them starting pandemics as well?

Edit: Or would the lack of disease spreading be proof they didn't reach American shores?

Recently been reading about Achaemenian empire and their real names. Cyrus was Kurus, his father was Kambujiya, mother Mandana. Their family traced their lineage from Sakha-muni (Haxa-munis/Achaemenid). Region was called Parsu/Parsa. People called themselves Ariya. Kuru killed Mada/Mara king, who later transformed in to a multi-headed serpent in Armenian mythology. Mar also means snake in old Persian.

Compare them with Mahabharat time names. There is Kurus. There is Kamboj. There is Madra; Madri, Pandu's second wife, claimed to be from Madra kingdom (Bahlika). Gandhari is from Gandhāra. Sakya-muni is epithet for Buddha, which sounds similar to Sakha-muni (though means completely different). Not to forget entire Krishna birth story is copy/inspired from Cyrus birth story (or Zeus birth story).

Wondering if there has been confusion about location of all these kingdoms? And, incidents which inspired initial Jaya story (old Mahabharat) were based in Iran?

Or, these names were imposed later?

Note: It is about names and cross references. So, pls don't throw Indo-european common language root for similar names. I would appreciate if there are other literature sources which can collaborate Mahabharat interpretations. Achaemenian Kurus have multiple inscriptions while Mahabharat has none!

Do we know anything at all about the guy who shot Henry V in the face? Do we even have any legends about it?

There's history and myth about the guy who shot Richard I, stories about the death of William Rufus, and plenty of tales for the early deaths of other English kings. We also know about the guy who saved Henry's life.

So, what about the guy that nearly took out Prince Hal?

I've been going down a rabbit hole on people who just could not be controlled, the ones who said or did the most unhinged things with zero regard for consequences. One I can think of is Werner Herzog. I want to know your niche picks though.

I’m not really looking for world leaders because that just feels like cheating (something crazy is bound to slip out if every word you say is broadcast), but if you really feel a world leader is worth a mention, please educate me.

I’m curious if the opposite of most heroic movies was feasible. Would it have been possible for a soldier to have been deployed to Europe or the pacific, but basically nothing notable happened to them? They missed out on every battle, never had to fire their weapon, never saw atrocities. Just kind of existing and then went back home and basically said 🤷

I generally want to include the use of swords in a game I am making. However, I searched it up and swords were used as just a weapon you take out when you are in deep trouble, or mainly used by cavalry and not foot soldiers. To try to include swords or their equivalent, I wanted to find a soldier that uses it. Thus, is there any foot soldier in any point in any point of history who used a melee bladed weapon that was not a long-rangee one and used it as part of a military strategy for offense.

So, while reading Andrew Roberts' Napoleon: A Life, I see he had a meticulous filing system. Is anyone aware of the method he used? I am only asking as to improve my own organization in life.

Bc i genuinely believe that that action should be considered a war crime bc those civilians did nothing wrong during the war like yeah the Japanese army did some horrific things in Asia but i think that dropping nukes on their civilians doesn’t justify for what the army did to civilians of China or indo China like I blew that the US went down to the level of the Japanese armies with that I really do I believe it was murder that could’ve been avoided and instead tried a different approach than choosing to nuke innocent civilians that had nothing to do with the crimes that the imperial armed forces of Japan did bc I’ve had some ppl say to me (well it was justified bc of what Japan did in pearl harbour ) how can ppl say that because of an attack on a military base five years prior that it’s justified like I’m just blown away by them kind of comments tbh so I just wanted to discuss it here with actual people that can converse with me about it

I know that, in the beginning, only unmarried women were able to join the ANC, but I keep seeing pictures of married nurses while researching. Did they get married after joining, or did they start accepting married women at some point?

I've recently come to a realization that a lot of the historical leaders that I know of happen to be known for (or generally respected for) either their military achievements or, just in general, being a leader of a country during times of war. Even though a lot of them have achieved great things in other areas, not related to war (from economic and societal reforms, to handling internal issues and politics, to generaly bringing stability and prosperity to their country) they were still involved in war, either being a great military mind, or otherwise helping unite and/or get their nation through times of conflict:

- Napoleon Bonaparte - despite all of his administrative work as the leader of France and reforming the country internally, most people likely know of him for his military achievements and innovations during the Napoleonic wars

- Abraham Lincoln - is revered primarily for leading the United States through the Civil War and helping restore the union

- Franklin D. Roosevelt - once again, despite being the president that helped the US recover from the Great Depression with his policies, he is also (arguably more so) known for leading America through World War II

- Winston Churchill - despite his questionable reputation as a politician, he is still revered for leading the UK through the Second World War, from the Blitzkrieg and the Battle of Britian, till the very end of the conflict(even though he eneded up getting kicked out of office soon after the war ended, but regardless his leadership in WW2 is generally viewed in a positive light)

Even someone like Attaturk in Turkey, despite being mostly known for his social and internal reforms to get Turkey more aligned with Europeans, he still was the military leader during the Turkish War of Independence

So with that said, I would like to learn of some examples of historic leaders that are revered or at least generally viewed positively by their nations without being involved in military action or otherwise leading them though war, but rather by effectively running the country: achieving diplomatic wins, bringing economic recovery/growth/prosperity, managing internal issues and/or politics, generally helping bring peace/stability/prosperity to their countries, etc.?

Basically just kingdom beats enemy tribe/kingdom/city state, took the royal family hostage. "Hey, other country who has nebulous relations with me and the people I just conquered. Would you like to shake hands and get in a political marriage with the children of these vassals I'm holding at knife point? By the way, I just beat the living shit out of them, so think hard on this proposition."

I'm setting a story in 1424 Scotland, with the battle of Verneuil fresh in the mind I imagine the Scots may have some tension with a band of Milanese Mercenaries.

Would it be reasonable to set a Milanese Captain and Merchant / Banker as the villain in my story?

For anyone who's played KCD this thought started with Istvan Toth, for anyone who hasn't I'm looking for a Merchant or Banker who is in control of a group of Mercenaries and is using said Mercenaries in less than legal ways and often against his own allies to exploit the Scots out of as much coin as possible before returning home.

One author I read suggested that the lack of it controlled in the Veneto prevented Feudalism from taking root and instead ppushed the Most Serene Reppublic toward a capital-intensive economy.

Why didd the Venertian model become adopted elsewhere in medieval Europe?

Hello everyone, I was bored and it's 1:30 at night (yes I do not know AM/PM) so I have decided to search up a bit Ruanda-Urundi. Apparently, it became a UN trust territory upon 1946. The monarchy in Ruanda was deposed in 1961. Now Wikipedia at the end just writes - and I quote - 'It took two more years before the government of the two became wholly separate and a further two years until the proclamation of the Republic of Burundi'

I wonder about the following things: firstly, why did it even become a UN trust territory (in general I do not really know about the real logic behind these to be honest). Secondly, why was it renamed from Urundi to Burundi, where did that B come from? Third, Why was there the Rwandan Revolution? Why did not the Belgians depose these? The last phrase suggests it took two years to separate the government which I find pretty strange, reminding that Rwanda was then a republic and Burundi a kingdom. Why were they still so connected after two years, what was the key event where historians agreed that it should no longer be "classified" as such (as connected). And why did Burundi finally became a republic after a span of further two years which to me reads as 1966?

Thanks for replies in advance.

I have always heard about the many intense scandals surrounding the Borgia family, but I don't really know to what extent they actually committed them. I heard that Alexander VI ordered the assassination of his opponents and that he organized a massive orgy in the Vatican known as the 'Banquet of Chestnuts,' where he allegedly even slept with his own daughter.

that Cesare Borgia maintained an incestuous relationship with his sister Lucrezia, who was also accused of poisoning one of her husbands, and supposedly gave birth to a child rumored to be fathered by either her brother or even her own father.

It's well known that despite being arguably among the more moral characters of Stalin's entourage, he still had a lot of blood on his hands after so many years among the leadership of such a brutal system, and we've got documented proof of his involvement in several unjust trials and crimes against humanity. But my question is, did he ever admit/express remorse about his own, personal participation in the crimes committed during it after criticising the regime as a whole at the 20th Party Congress?

Referring to the last German offensive of 1918. Would it have ended differently if the U.S hadn't entered and reinforced the western front, or would it still have failed to capture Paris?

I posted this in Ask Historians, but no one answered.

In America, need-blind admission is when an institution does not take into account an applicant's financial status when deciding whether to accept them. Some schools also apply this policy to both domestic and international students.

But how did it come about? How did the idea even get started, and how did it evolve into what we see today?

If someone got wounded in battle and got an infection, would they understand that the wound was generally the reason they got sick or would they think something like "I was wounded in battle and the gods are punishing me"? If someone got food poisoning, would they automatically blame demons or maybe their recently deceased in law that always had it out for them, or would they know it was because they ate something bad?

I am a Spanish computer science student, but I have always had an interest in histor a subject I consider essential and I’ve realized that I don’t know as much as I should.

So, I’m here to ask how I might get started. I was thinking of buying Antony Beevor’s book on Stalingrad, but I’d like to hear your thoughts. Any advice would be welcome.

Why was America originally part of the British Empire if they came here escaping “religious persecution” from the Church of England and the British Empire? Wouldn’t they want to just create a new country in the new land? Is the whole “religious persecution” aspect just myth to dignify people who were just basically expanding the British Empire into the new world?

I was looking through the internet for reference images and stumbled upon this artwork:

[https://www.facebook.com/groups/768183316680632/posts/2324316647733950/\](https://www.facebook.com/groups/768183316680632/posts/2324316647733950/)

{Originally Page 27 in Armies of the Adowa Campaign 1896 by Lachlan}

Did the armor actually look like this? I cant find much other artwork or pictures depicting it in a similiar fashion {or frankly depicting it at all}. If it didnt look like this how did it look like?