The US Army adopted the Krag-Jorgensen in 1892 after holding a competition in which it beat out several other domestic and foreign designs (including several entered by Mauser.)After the competition, two US designers sued the US government over the selection forcing a review of the testing. Once again the Krag won the competition and was confirmed as the selection.

Fast forward to 1898 and the American operation to capture the city of Santiago de Cuba from its Spanish defenders. The outnumbered Spanish were dug in and well fortified on the high ground outside of the city. Most famously atop San Juan and Kettle Hill. The US Army took the Spanish positions following a frontal assault and suffered high casualties.

An Army board of investigation concluded that the high casualties were the result of the Spanish Mauser rifles being far superior to the Krag-Jorgensens carried by US soldiers. While most of the regular US soldiers were armed with Krags many were not. Indeed, the Buffalo Soldiers of the all-Black 10th Cavalry (who led the charge up Kettle Hill) appear to have been armed with antiquated black-powder, single shot Trapdoor Springfield rifles. The American artillery was similarly inferior to the more modern cannons employed by the Spanish.

Considering the inferiority of other weapons in American use during the war, the direct assault uphill on an entrenched enemy and the notoriously political (and at times blatantly corrupt) nature of weapons procurement contracts during that era, was the Krag scapegoated in order to get it replaced? While the 1893 Mauser was superior to the Krag, I doubt the difference was so great as to necessitate the cost of replacement after so recently having adopted it. Not to mention the Mausers used by the Spanish (or a closely related design) was entered into the contest by Mauser and lost out to the Krag. The design was good enough that the Norwegian and Danish Armed Forces (with necessary updates over time) continued to use them as their standard issue rifles through the end of WWII. Although they would likely have less resources to replace the rifles than the US Army did, this was still 60+ years since its first adoption by the Danes in 1889.

So, was the American Krag as outclassed by the Spanish Mausers as is commonly claimed or was its downfall a politically motivated attempt to get a domestic made replacement by people that never wanted it adopted in the first place?

If castles are force multipliers for the defending army why bother risking personal and resources to take it? Would it not be more advantageous to move on and face the castle’s forces in the open as your forces march and take other objectives? Or leave behind a smaller force to keep the castle under siege to starve them out while your main force moves on? Sieges can be costly to the attackers so it seems like they should be avoided whenever possible and whatever force the castle garrisons is better drawn into open combat or left to starve behind their walls.

I noted that during the Boer War and World War I, the Royal Navy seemed to be in operation of several armoured trains. Was this because they were armed with naval guns or...what?

Let's say that the settlement is newly founded and that it is in a natural harbour, with a river nearby and access to good commerce (land and sea), although that would most likely be in the (near) future.

How fast could the settlement grow into a town of say 5.000 people or into a city of 20.000-30.000 or possibly more?

And how fast could a settlement that is inland, but at the intersection of travel and trade routes grow to the same figures as the seaside settlement?

Bit of a hard one-- I want to learn about the Oxus civilization, but I'm struggling to find a comprehensive introductory source, or a group of sources covering particular topics which I can work off from there. Would anybody be able to provide some pointers?

Especially the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I heard that to finance their tea import Britain flood china with their opium. How did china recover from the war and also from the opium epidemic.

Where I grew up in the US, this was a question we were asked a lot throughout childhood and early adolescence. Partly it seemed to function as an easy go-to for adults to try to relate to kids by inquiring about their interests, but it was also a staple of more formal "About Me"-type activities. For instance, when we had to interview other kids or make a poster about ourselves, we were often prompted to ask or answer the Favorite Color question. That is, the Favorite Color question seems like it's not just an informal mode of initiating interactions with kids in my culture, but also an institutionalized one.

It always seemed very arbitrary to me, and I'm skeptical that it would even occur to most kids to have a favorite color if they weren't asked so frequently to choose one. So I'm curious about two things:

1. Does anybody know anything about the origins of the Favorite Color question, how it became such a staple of adult-child interactions in American culture/pedagogy/whatever, or the prevalence of this question in other cultures throughout history?

2. What about asking young children to define themselves in relation to favorite things (color, animal, food, etc.) more generally as an often-repeated pattern of interaction? Is this pattern commonly observed across cultures or time periods?

I realize that there's almost no ancient written artifacts in South East Asia and when I see why the only reason I can think of is the harsh climate for any records. Then I realize that it's the same for all regions around the equator so I'm wondering if it's really because of that or just because there's no one writing it? Especially compared to any other regions especially the Mediterranean let alone the cradle of civilizations where written records can be found from even millenniums before.

When was the wreck of the R.M.S. Lusitania found? I can't find any information anywhere about it.

From my understanding most people didn't learn languages in the Middle Ages etc apart from the clergy learning Latin and I beleive that was a process of rote learning. What interests me more is the aristocracy during the Renaissance. There seemed to be an expectation that everyone above a certain social standing had to be at least bilingual if not a polyglot. This begs the question how did they do it ,as virtually none of the resources common today existed back then . Was their learning immersion based ,or did it have a greater focus on textbooks and tutors ,or was it something entirely different?

I’m not saying the USSR was the victor, but in my view, they didn’t completely lose. They were the first to launch a satellite, first to launch a living being, first to launch a human, first to have a manned spacewalk, and first to orbit the moon.

Hello!

I'm curious about what languages were spoken in cities & towns in Medieval France (incl. areas of the Holy Roman Empire that are now part of modern France). I know Old Occitan, Old French, Medieval Latin, Middle High German were spoken. But were most people in medieval France bilingual? Would people marry into families who had a different main language? How about medieval taverns and trade, what was the main language spoken there?

I understand France is a huge place, and finding precise answers was quite difficult for me. Any information or advice would be appreciated.

Thanks for any replies. I've got a growing fascination with medieval history, particularly in France. For my interest to grow, it's best I brush up on my language and reading skills. But there are so many medieval languages, I'm unsure which one to pick. (Besides latin, which I'm currently learning)

A few months ago, I was really disillusioned with my history degree and asked for help, and this sub kindly helped me rediscover my love for history. I just want to say, a few months later, thank you to r/askhistorians .

Like India and china

When I hear about the siege of Alesia, or any of Caesars exploits, it often involves large fortifications that were built very quickly. I'm wondering if every Contubernium had a few axes, and how did all the soldiers know what to do?

Did they have a large engineer corp?

I’m a lover of history especially you combat history as I call it. I focus more on the American Civil War era but the second world war is also an era of world history that I love. Now we all know about operation overlord better known as DJ. The landing on June 6, 1944 which resulted in the opening of the Western front in the second world war on continental Europe. We also know that this was a success. Although the time this wasn’t necessarily the case.

Later on in the conflict we are told that the British general Bernard Montgomery hatched an idea to undergo an operation that in his mind could’ve ended The war by a total of at least six months in his mind. This of course was the operation which came to be known as operation market Garden. However as the history books say market garden was an unmitigated disaster. Thousands of paratroopers or killed and hundreds more heartache and prisoner. Vehicles and other things are destroyed or even left behind. Yet what caused this disaster?

And was it really as big of a disaster as it is usually depicted in things like documentaries, films and other media?

Was it even a plan that could’ve ever worked at all or was it simply general Montgomery trying to put himself in the history books?

I read about the fictional element Mithril from Lord of the Rings, and how it could have been inspired by titanium. I was wondering if, assuming they had the knowledge, it would be possible for a society with medieval-era technology to produce even a small amount of low quality titanium.

Would it have even been possible? If so, how difficult would it have been?