From what I understand, even after Edward's birth, Henry still desired another son, which is quite understandable given that he himself was a second son. So if I were in his place during that time in history, fertility would be my utmost criterion for a wife. Now, obviously Henry wouldn't have a modern understanding of that term, or any other medical knowledge, but judging what people today still believe, one might expect him to either go for youth or for "proven" fertility, as in a widow who had already had children. However, Catherine fits neither - in fact, given that she was 30 and had already been married twice without having any children, I would expect 16th century society to consider her infertile. So I'd like to know if he had any (political?) reasons to go ahead with the marriage outside of potentially having a second male child.

This question comes from listening to the “Rest is History” podcast, and their recent series on the Troubles. One contributor to that particular crisis which the hosts point out is how, repeatedly, British politicans made statements such as “we shouldn’t get involved because we know nothing about Northern Ireland.” To paraphrase Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook, so many ministers speak about not understanding Northern Ireland as tho it were a “fact of nature,” and that there was literally nothing they could do to change it. They speak about Northern Ireland as if it was on the other side of the world, rather than on a neighboring island.

Both hosts discuss briefly that it may have stemmed from the Irish home rule debate, and how intractable that was for the British government to resolve. Still, I wonder if someone could go deeper on this. Why did so many prominent British politicians feel utterly incapable of understanding Northern Ireland?

Around the turn of the 20th century, Argentina was an economic giant with one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world, while Brazil was deeply impoverished and agrarian. By the end of the century, this relationship completely flipped: Brazil became the dominant regional superpower in South America, and Argentina grew economically and geopolitically weaker.
What are the primary historical reasons for this total role reversal?

The premise of the upcoming film By Any Means got me curious about the history behind one part of its story. How realistic would that position have been during the 1950s and 1960s? Were Black FBI agents assigned to investigations involving the KKK or racial violence in Mississippi during this period? If so how did their federal authority work when dealing with segregated local police departments and government officials? I’m especially interested in documented cases where race affected an agent’s ability to do his job. Did local authorities treat Black federal agents differently from their white colleagues or refuse to cooperate with them?

I’m less interested in whether the film itself is historically accurate since it takes dramatic liberties. I’m more curious about the real history behind the situation it depicts and any documented examples of Black FBI agents working in Mississippi or elsewhere in the Deep South during the Civil Rights era.

I remember reading once that he was actually (perhaps to his annoyance?) rather good at the actual work of running his father's business.

I’m Ron James (AKA Folklore), the author of the newly released The History of Cornish Tradition: A Folkloric Journey. This book presents an opportunity to consider how oral narratives and cultural practices change over the centuries – see its introduction here. Four hundred years of primary sources from Britain’s far southwestern peninsula document cultural survival, change, and innovation. In the minds of many, folklore conjures images of hoary traditions that transform slowly if at all. Reality is more dynamic, inviting a blend of historical and folkloristic perspectives. This is the second time I have combined history and folklore to this extent: a previous book, Monumental Lies: Early Nevada Folklore of the Wild West (2023) tackles questions about how folklore emerged and evolved amid the mining frontier. The History of Cornish Tradition is extremely expensive, but fortunately the University of Exeter Press is offering a 30% discount – use AMA30 (good through the end of the year) when checking out. In addition, Monumental Lies is also available with a 30% discount – use UNP2026 (good through 30 September 2026) when checking out.

We all know of English language sea shanties. Did any Portuguese or Spanish sailor's work song or similar survived in written records or singing traditions?

What were the conditions that allowed the English language sea shanties to survive past the windsail era?

I came across this quote from General Wesley Clark who shared this behind-the-scenes account the aftermath of 9/11 in an interview in 2007.

According to Clark the countries mentioned were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

I don’t understand because these countries have nothing to do with 9/11 and run on quite different ideologies with nothing or little in common.

Clark stated that an anonymous general working on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon physically showed him the classified memo in November 2001.

The unnamed general told him the memo came directly from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and his Deputy (Paul Wolfowitz)

EDIT: seven Muslim countries

Wondering, because now the monarchs are protected by professional security guards when did the role of the guard regiments transition from a genuine role to mostly just a ceremonious role?

I heard someone say that Japanese language did not even have a word for “the western concept of love” until the 19th century. I am struggling to understand what they meant, surely love is a universal human emotion? Is it some difference in the expression or cultural understanding of romance, sexuality, affection, attachment? Was it simply an inaccurate statement? If it is true, what did love look like in Japan before western influence?

I have a keen interest in the Middle Ages, and this is something that has always stuck in my mind—especially when I’m reading fantasy novels and see characters traveling from point A to point B in less than a week.

Could travel between places really be that fast? Was travel common for commoners, or was it reserved only for those with money?

Thank you very much for your time.

According to this video, Suvorov marched a Russo-Austrian coalition army of some 35-40,000 strong some 90km in 3 days to first intercept Moreau's army, then another 90km in 36 hours to fight MacDonald's army at the Trebbia in an intensive multi-day action of repeated attacks and counter attacks. Then after MacDonald was beaten, he then set his army on an intense pursuit, eliminating MacDonald's Army of Naples as a threat in Northern Italy. All of this done under 35C sweltering heat (according to Wikipedia).

This seems extraordinarily incredible to me. For reference, an ultramarathoner running a 100km race completes it on average in 9-12hrs. This is like asking a whole army of ultramarathoners to finish a 100km course, while carrying 40-50lbs of gear, then fight a multi-day battle of marching across the battlefield, skirmishing, bayonet charges and countercharges - and win the battle. Then after that, you have to secure a town with thousands of prisoners and conduct yet another multi-day pursuit of the retreating enemy. That Suvorov's army was able to fight at all at Trebbia seemed a minor miracle in itself and no real mention were made of attrition due to exhaustion (which one would think would be numerous).

How is this achieved?

Were certain political or civic groups (perhaps with convenient member lists) associated with being tolerant of Tutsis? Was it simply that any Hutu (or Twa) person refusing to participate or assist in the mass murders "moderate" and therefore an enemy in the eyes of the perpetrators?

Thank you.

I’ve read that abortion became a touchpoint issue in the US after the evangelical movement embraced the anti-abortion stance in the 80s. However, abortion was still illegal in most of the country before Roe v. Wade. Clearly, anti-abortion views must have existed prior to the 80s. The US does has a large Catholic population, but Protestants have always outnumbered them by far. Widespread abortion bans would require widespread Protestant support.

How did 20th century Americans view abortion prior to the rise of the modern anti-abortion movement? What changed with the rise of said movement? Did Roe v. Wade cause a shift beforehand?

Who came up with there being 7 days in a week and what was it like before that?

I usually see the anecdote about African-Americans serving in congress during reconstruction come up but I haven't heard much about what they did while in office. I would assume they would have mostly similar views given the circumstances and support the Radicals for obvious reasons, but I don't see that come up when reading about radical republican actions which mostly focus on Stevens, Phillips, and Butler.

What acts did they support? were they considered an important block in the congress or were they ignored? How did they get treated as more and more southern Democrats got elected to congress as well nearing Reconstructions end?

And was this seen as something desirable, like a chance for a new or better life, or rather the opposite? Was this something let's say a French farmer during the 30 years' war or a Spanish blacksmith in 1540 when the Spanish colonies in America were still fairly new could do?

I hear things such as fighting Mass migration on the news everyday and throughout almost every political party in the west.

I actually wonder if that has ever worked. If a large sum of people from a different region move to another region, I think it would be almost impossible to move them back to where they came from or send them to another place without committing crimes. Has this actually ever worked?

It’s a surprising lack of compassion especially with his overall character and upbringing. He really does not have an excuse. But maybe going to a military school and interacting with boys from slaveholding families made him make excuses to himself. Like if these guys are “good” then slavery can’t be bad. Befriending the Dent boy from school and visiting his slaveholding home and then marrying his sister. Again no excuses for him to just ignore all of that.

I really don’t know but his attitude reminds me of my cousin who is a good guy to family until we talk politics and he just shrugs off the pain and struggles of certain oppressed groups. Even worse when he’s a minority himself! And I think he must’ve got it from his awful friends growing up and online because his parents aren’t like that at all. Anyway just a guess would like to know the opinions of actual historians!

I have always wondered about something that is rarely shown or explained in movies or books: what actually happened to a battlefield after a battle was over? Who cleaned up?
Let's take the Napoleonic wars as an example. A large battle could involve 100,000 or more soldiers and result in around 10,000–12,000 casualties. So what happened after the fighting stopped?
What happened to the bodies of their own soldiers? Did armies try to identify and recover them? And the the bodies of enemy soldiers?
How long did it take to clean up a battlefield with thousands of dead bodies and dead horses?

How did this process really work?

Thanks in advice for the answers!