I assume that the time allotted between the election and the elector vote is due to it taking longer to get a decision. Is this correct?

I was reading Life and Fate by Vasily Grossman and in it he mentions that Soviet POWs served as attendants and guards in the extermination camps? How did this happen?

I know that the population of Rome during the height of the empire was unprecedently big at around 1 million people. However after the fall of the western empire and being sacked and invaded multiple times the population shrunk to just a few thousand people. Do we have any accounts on how was it like living in the city after its fall? Was it like a ghost town where everybody could see the ruins of the empire or was much of it burned or destroyed?

As the above question asks.

The fact that I've heard several people now say that they didn't realize "lamb" meant "baby sheep" (as opposed to it referring to a meat type, a la "pork" and "pig") notwithstanding.

Who was the first person to think that we're not alone in the universe? When did it happen? Did they just see a flying saucer and come up with that or something?

So, I’m pretty sure we all know that the B-29 had turrets that could be remotely controlled from “fire stations” inside the bomber. But my question revolves around how exactly the gunner would see and fire at the target. I will try to break it up into sections for easy reference:

1. How would the gunner even see the target. I know that there are windows on the side of the bomber that you can look out of, but would those even be effective? And God forbid that the target is well... above the bomber. (Yes I know that it would fly higher than a Japanese zero, but say the enemy somehow was above the bomber). Was there a sort of monitor inside of the gunner’s position? If so, how clear was the picture, was it in color, and were the “sights” of the turret relative to the monitor feed, or another sensory device, given that you would have to account for ballistics, but you would probably want to see your target at the same time? This seems like it would be rather out of place though, even considering that the project was crazy expensive.

2. How would the gunner fire? This is of less importance, but I am still curious. Would they just press a button? Or would there be some sort of trigger integrated into their console?

3. How would the turrets rotate? Since the guns aren’t operated manually, I don’t expect that the rotation of the turret would either. Would they have a joystick that moved it? That would seem the most logical to me.

Explanations are great but so are pictures, but I’ve not been able to find any good quality, up close pictures of the gunner’s fire station, so any links towards good pictures would be just as appreciated.

The reason I’m asking this is because people always talk about the remote systems, but quickly gloss-over the mechanics behind it. After all, we were still using wood landing decks on aircraft carriers, so it’s hard to imagine that the gunner inside a WWII bomber would have an Alien Ware monitor inside his fire station. I look forward to reading your answers!

Ive been going down a rabbit hole of looking at readings about contemporary american political issues all the way to to the idea of nationalism on a grand scale.

Through my google searches i keep coming back to this subredddit and learning about writers from Hobsbawm, to Gat to Immerwahr. And through these posts ive noticed some writers being labeled as "modern". For example Hobsbawm VS Azar Gat.

Im curious what is exactly meant by this. As stated in the question, are they modern because of the year that they are writing? Or is it an idea about these ideas (i.e nationalism) that they are writing about. And does their modernity apply to a newer set of politics that they position themselves against?

I apologize if the question is awkward. im kinda learning all this stuff on my own, and im not a historian nor did i go to school for this stuff.

The implicit bias of Caeser in describing his skirmishes in Gaul is obvious of course, but, interesting to me is if that is the case shouldn't he downplay how close the battle against them at Sabis was? I'd love recommend reading regarding the subject as well. His regard for them after the battle going so far as to call them heroic is also interesting. Was that mostly to paint himself in a more heroic light?

Question sounds ridiculous, I know. My mother is a Jehovah's witness, and she listened to a talk earlier tonight. Apparently the speaker claimed that a lot of Aztec and Incan mythology or beliefs, that kind of stuff can be linked straight back to the Babylonian empire. Supposedly Babylonia was extremely important and a birthplace to much of ancient history and religions. Is there any truth to this? Will be happy to clarify any other questions.

David Fitzgerald is a historian that argues against there being a historical Jesus. One of his claims is that around the time Jesus died, churches were beginning to sprout up in Judea, Damascus, Greece, and even Rome itself.

Hey y'all,

Does anyone happen to have any resources they wouldn't mind sharing regarding self-determination and/or the arbitrariness of sovereignty in WWI? Any resources for any intended audience would do—I don't mind examining whatever y'all share.

Thanks in advance!

I'm been reading up on him and as I understand it, before Napoleon generals had more direct control of their army. For example, Frederick the Great used very intricate tactics and plans to defeat all of Europe, which required him to have a detailed idea of what was going on at a small scale. As I understand it, Napoleon won battles with simple plans (or no plans at all) and left the details to lower levels.

Example:

At Leuthen, Frederick the Great tricked the Austrians in thinking he was retreating. Then he deployed in four columns and hid his army behind hills. He kept the farthest cavalry column in view to make the Austrians think he was going to move on their right, actually he piled the other three columns together behind the hills to hit the Austrian left. Then he marched the three columns around the Austrian left, using the hills to cover. He prepared an infantry attack at a perfect angle on the weakest part and hid his artillery on the hills. Then he attacked! When the Austrians tried to counter the infantry, his artillery fired down on their right as his cavalry hit their left. The Austrians got completely destroyed.

At Austerlitz, Napoleon let the Russians weaken their center to attack his right. Then he had his generals attack the center, and march around to his right. Very simple plan, just a hammer and anvil. Napoleon's only responsibility was sending in reinforcements while his marshals did the real work. He didn't personally give instructions on what formations or feigned retreats or angle of attack. His plan relied on only one trick: the Russians attack his right. Frederick tricked the Austrians into with the retreat, tricked them with the cavalry, tricked them with the hills, tricked them with the artillery. Napoleon's poorly thought-out plan could have easily gone wrong without his subordinates filling in the details. Frederick's detailed plan meant he always had another great trick up his sleeve if any one part failed.

I know that Spain and Portugal had a 100 years start ahead the other colonial powers but I still find it hard to believe that the influence of the rest of the colonial powers was limited to some caribbean islands and the Guyana region.

Were all the hospitable regions already taken, did anyone tried to take spanish or portuguese colonies by force, I just want to know.

If you read literature from several thousand years ago, the dialogue is super dry. As I read through he Bible and the Odyssey, the plot is great, the characters are good, but the dialogue is so dry and unnatural. Did people actually talk like that 2-3 thousand years ago, or did that boring dialogue come from somewhere else?