I need book recommendations. Preferably books that are about American history, but I’m open to any you think is worth the read.

It's a question that I always thought about. I can understand for Mayence, Trier and Cologne, being archbishoprics their position as electors is justifiable, Bohemia for its importance in the Empire, but for example, why Brandenburg or the Palatinate ? Why such insignificant nations in the greater Empire were chosen ? I think I read somewhere that it was linked to their position before the Golden Bull, but still, why were those specific nations chosen to elect the Emperor ?

I recently started a documentary called plutocracy and it’s alluding to early police being formed to stop unions from being formed. Is there any truth to this?

I just watched “Hitler - A Career” on Netflix. If I wasn’t already aware of the Holocaust, I would have little knowledge of concentration camps from this doc alone. It focused on Hitler’s rise and fall with little mention of Jews/camps.

Is there a documentary that talks about the experience of German civilians and soldiers? I imagine many were against the concentration camps. Aside from “brainwashing” soldiers from a very young age, how were the people of Germany convinced to stay on board? I would love to watch a documentary that dives into this.

The physician in the autopsy of Charles II gave some very... colorful (if not medically impossible) descriptions like "heart the size of a peppercorn" and "did not contain a single drop of blood." What was going on in these autopsies?

In almost every Fantasy novel there is the stereotypical Inn/Tavern. This is usually a barroom with rooms attached, serving food and drinks. Considering most fantasy novels are framed in the Middle Ages, did this exist then or anytime similar or is their existence exaggerated by fantasy novels?

Bonus Question: Did traveling bards actually exist? And how prevalent were bandits in the Middle Ages?

Specifically at the battle of Jutland, ships that were sunk often had all but a few hands lost. But it seems to be a common trend in many WW1 naval engagements. In WW2 survival seemed much more common. What specifically about WW1 naval engagements lead to such a higher hands lost rate?

I hope this doesn't break any of the rules. I know it may skirt the line on the no <20 year rule(since it does have to do with two alive political parties), but I think that it (hopefully) falls in the past enough for it to be non-current-political. If not mods please let me know and I will delete or edit the question to fit back into the rules.

​

It is a common assertion that at some point after the civil war, the parties "switched." From what I can tell they take it to mean the ideological positions of the democrats became that of the republicans and vice versa. However whenever I ask someone who asserts this (usually to claim that Lincoln was somehow "really" a democrat) I never get a clear answer on what exactly switched about the parties.

​

For example, the democrats circa civil war were pro-slavery, and now they (at least in rhetoric) stand up against racism. But that doesn't mean that the Republicans became totally pro-slavery (took on the democrats position); I personally don't consider the average modern-day republican racist. Likewise, from my understanding, the original democrats were proponents of small government, and the original republicans were classical liberal, which also tends to favor markets over governments. Of course both sides tend to take a large bureaucratic state as a given.

​

It seems to me more like there was an evolution of ideas so that both parties occupied ideological positions that were different than the one that they had before, but also different than what their counterpart had before. It would seem strange to me that so many people would change their party to the opposite rather than just join the other party. So is there any truth to the switching sides argument, or is it just an urban legend?

I imagine the short answer to this question is simple: Prohibition. It killed off so many producers. However, I'm curious how and why other whiskey-producing areas - notably, Kentucky bourbon - managed to survive when Maryland did not. Maryland rye seemed to completely disappear from production as a whole category of spirit. We don't even know what kind of recipes and blends the early producers of rye in Maryland used, only that we see it written about as a prized substance.

Any help, food historians?

As the title suggests... If there is by any chance any correlation it would be a huge NO U moment from the Serbs. But my hopes are low... Thanks in advance for any answers!!

Chess is such an ancient game, I'm really curious to know if it might have a different culture, or if there was a general "European" etiquette of Chess.

I only know a little bit, but from reading it looks like there's a bunch of risky, almost gambly moves. Like a risky open, or stuff like that. But a lot of what I read tends to talk about the Cold War. What about chess earlier in the mid 1700's?

Portugal was one of the richest country on earth in the 15th and 16th century. I know that the 1755 earthquake was a big reason Portugal went that way, but, I find it hard to believe its the only reason.

By 1913, GDP per capita (from Maddison) was $1,250 which was lower than even Russia’s at $1,488. Literacy Rate was also around 20-25%.

Not sure if that question makes sense. But considering all the traffic that flows through the Panama canal why hasn't this become the crossroads of the world? It seems like they would be able to capitalize on manufacturing & tansit ships like Istanbul/Constantinople.

Or am I blind?

I am curious because it is so common to see millions now, especially notional figures, but I doubt there would have been a need for such large denominations in the time of the Roman Empire—especially given that, though they traded with currency, it would be highly impractical to have a million physical anything sitting around.

With the Histories being so lengthy, there mustve been volumes of scratch paper and notes he took while interviewing people.

These days journalists have tape and digital recorders and plentiful cheap paper, but with paper being such a luxury back then, how would Herodotus and other authors of the Classical era go about drafting, brainstorming, compiling, editing etc before putting out a finished work?