How were people able to chart coastlines, islands, currents (etc) without airplanes and satellites?

I know that the U. S. government forcefully relocated Native Americans (Trail of Tears et al.) and kept them to reservations; and I'm aware that the size and location of those reservations was affected by local settlers aiming for that land (gold in the Black Hills, etc.) But to what extent were US army military interventions against the Native Americans driven by public sentiment? Was it a case where the government was pursuing its own agenda, or was it attempting to follow a popular mandate from the white settlers in who had moved into the Native American territories and then called for the military to "do something" about the Native Americans? Was there any public debate about the military mobilizing against the Native Americans in this fashion, especially after massacres like Wounded Knee?

After hearing that John Laurens died in a gunfight, why would Hamilton call his death his greatest wound of the war, why would it be a wound to him?

The Americans provided weapons, the Russians provided manpower... what did the British do?

Hi!

I am just somebody, who really is interested in history. I recently read a book on Japanese history including the Meiji Restauration. In that there was a whole section on how Japan tried to install a feeling of national identity into their people.

This got me thinking: When and how did national identity start in Europe? Was it also installed top down via school, like in Japan?

I asked some friends who studied history, but as neither was specialized in modern history, all they could tell me, was that it was not the middle ages, though those apparently had a strong urban identity in some cities.

So I really am interested, especially considering how later on national identity was again and again weaponized: When did it start for the common folk?

(If you know any books or essay on the topic: Feel free to direct me to it.)

​

Thanks in advance.

I'm not just talking about any kind of nostalgia or harking back to a "golden age", I'm curious specifically about this particular type of nostalgia. I don't mean solemn and reverent, seeing the era as brighter than a current period of decline, which I know is a common theme. I'm specifically referring to 70s and 80s films and music having a central position in much of popular culture, with groups such as Queen and ABBA being idolised, and the aesthetic of the era being revived in media such as Stranger Things, almost as the gold standard for music and media that everyone can relate to. I recognise my question is quite nebulous but I hope someone can grasp what I'm trying to say.

From reading Weber's excellent Becoming Hitler I was struck by how the distinction between the right and the left in 20's Germany appears so alien to our modern way of drawing these lines. Weber is clear that Hitler and the NSDAP were firmly right-wing, so there is no question there. However he speaks of certain policies that they believed in which today would be a component of more left-wing ideas. Although there was plenty of more recognisably far-right talk of national unity and scapegoating of minorities, Weber talks of how the NSDAP and other far-right parties also spoke against anti-finance and anti-capitalism.

Today any kind of anti-capitalist talk is considered a firm hallmark of the far-left. But in 1920 Germany, we see far-right parties openly calling for it. Was this just a ploy to deceive the working class into voting for them or were they genuinely trying to create a blend between far-right nationalism and a “worker’s party”.

As context, Weber writes: "The recurrent theme of Hitler’s speeches of 1920 was that Germany would be able to live under the “sun of liberty” again only if national solidarity and a belief in one’s own abilities were boosted. Further, that golden future could be achieved only if Bavarian separatism was combated, a classless workers’ state established, the peace conditions of the Versailles Treaty undone, and high finance and “interest slavery” destroyed."

It’s hard to get my head around this. Weber is excellent at examining the events of Hitler’s life, but I’m confused by the wider political scene and eager for more detail. So I’m looking for more information on this seemingly cross-party idea of anti-capitalism and workers’ rights in the politics of Weimar Germany, and the differences between the way it was talked about in the various socialist and communist parties on the left and the national socialists and their ilk on the right.

Firstly, what was causing such a hatred of “international finance” in Germany at the time? Were there specific scandals that had caused such widespread fear and anger, or was it just a general economic malaise? And what did right-wing speakers like Hitler mean precisely when they ranted against “interest slavery”, and international capitalism, other than being coded language for anti-semitism?

Secondly, can someone explain clearly to me the political scene of Weimar Germany; what was the distinction between the left-wing and right-wing – primarily in terms of their economic and class-based policies? What defined them economically in opposition to each other, and did the right-wing genuinely believe in fighting for worker’s rights and against capitalist interests, or was this just a ploy to steal the voter base of the communists and socialists?

Didnt the church usually have a problem with any form of ritual mutilation of a human body as it offended the image of god? Maybe I am wrong on that. But I would imagine someone on the church at some point had a big problem with men being castrated for their singing voices, or did the church explicitly encourage the practice?

Regardless of whether it is truthful and based on actual science, humanity have been using astrology since the beginning of time. We see the pyramids, Sphinx, stonehenge and a multitude of other big structures heavily oriented towards the sky and what it represented to them.

Using astral mapping and proper calculations, would it be possible to help narrow down new archeological sites that are, just as an example, buried under the sand in the Sahara desert or deep inside the Amazonian jungle?

Henry VIII beheading Anne Boleyn is still one of English history's most infamous stories, so I can't imagine how much would be discussed within a few decades of it happening. Elizabeth was probably too young to remember the incident itself, but she definitely learned about it and obviously felt one way or another about it. Do we have any indication how she felt?

Hello,

I have been curious about this for a while. Firstly, multiple different languages were spoken across North and South America at that time. Such as in Caribbean, or in the Inca Empire. So how did the Spanish, and Portuguese learn these local languages considering nobody from their side spoke the new languages. Did they just point to random objects and make noises? Since there were no merchants/interpreters how did they negotiate?

Hey trying to learn about the intricacies of the Versailles peace conference and a player that I feel isn't mentioned half enough in the literature is Italy. So I ask what are their main objectives at Versailles, I know of the want for Dalmatia and the Adriatic coast but were they keen on harsh reparations, collective security or even the league of nations?

If there's any sources you can recommend I'd be greatly appreciative.

Thank you

Let's say I am a Soviet Tank commander in the year 1944, and I am the commander of a T-34/76 Model 1943. I hear about the T-34/85. How do I know if and when I will get it?

I’m catching up on Revolutions, and in the episode I just listened to there was a brief mention of Peter the Great traveling incognito as part of a Russian delegation to other countries in 1697. But Peter the Great was also very very tall.

Was Peter the Great really able to travel incognito? Was so little known about Russia and its ruler that people were just like “well that’s a giant Russian”? Or was it more of a polite fiction where everyone knew who he was but pretended they didn’t?

In 1911, Gunther Burstyn designed a tank called the Motorgeschütz, but both Austria-Hungary and Germany rejected the design and the tank never ended up being produced. Is there any reason why this design was rejected and never went into production?

It starts

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

Are there more sacred words? Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Then it closes...

'And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.'

Q: Has our history or political rhetoric ever treated the 'Fortunes' line to mean wealth sharing and been serious in the debate?