We see it often in television shows. I can see the practical use of it, as it was readily available. But in reality, would this be a waste of an important resource?

(Question inspired by binge watching The Last Kingdom.)

I’ve heard conspiring theory after conspiring theory that Jews made up 80-85% of the first soviet government after the Bolshevik Revolution (Vladimir Putin said this) and that they were behind it all. Are these claims true? Are there any rebuttals to these claims?

I've started seeing things about the current situation changing car culture with remote work becoming more normalized. Wondering if that last big pandemic had effects at the dawn of the automobile. (The first Model T was produced in 1908.)

Hey, everyone, I've been getting into 19th-century history, both through my general interest in history and my love of Victorian style steampunk and sci-fi. To the point of my post, I was thinking of putting together a few period military uniforms, starting with the U.S Marines. I'm planning on placing the first project anywhere from the 1850s-1900(still a big gap of time), and here's where we get to the meat of my question. While I can do my own research and not burden the rest of you on the exact regulation uniforms Marines would have had, their weapons and/or sidearms is what trips me up. When exactly did America switch over to bolt action rifles, and what rifles were used at the time?

From what I understand, there was a push to get Americans to start eating organ meat during the world wars. I imagine that most civilisations throughout history would have eaten organ meat to make the most out of each animal slaughtered, so my question is, why weren't Americans (and potentially other cultures?) eating organ meat already?

Did they try to land on other carriers? Try to make it back to land? Ditch near a friendly ship?

I was watching a vet recall Dday and he mentioned waiting for a gap when gunners had to change barrels due to excessive firing before lowering the landing ramp. I’m not doubting the guy at all but I’ve never heard of barrel changing , just overheating and having to cool down. But then again I’m not well researched I’m this field at all so it would be cool to know, did Allies actually wait for Germans to have to change their barrels sometimes or do you think that may have been something a higher officer told the guy that a pause in fire could be and time to go ?

That is, the names that we customarily refer to them as in English, which are usually in a style to later European monarchs - monomial or binomial with ordinal numbers, which is definitely not how the Romans would have referred to them. And how were specific forms chosen? For instance, why do we call Flavius Claudius Contantinus Augustus (316-340) "Contantine II", rather than, say "Claudius III"? But Flavius Constantinus Augustus (641-668) is "Constans II", when Contstans isn't even a component of his name (should he not be "Constantine IV")? Or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (218-222), who we call "Elagabalus" rather than "Marcus Aurelius II", despite having the same name as the emperor we know as "Marcus Aurelius". There doesn't seem to be any rules!

When did these customary forms come about, and who decided them? Were they to be in step with contemporary European monarchs? Did the later Byzantines begin using this style, and apply it backwards to earlier Roman emperors? Was there a source that was influential in setting these names?

How would the daylie life of a young Tudor Lady in a rich household have looked. Would she have a teacher and what skills would she learn from him? What were usual pastime activities they did in their own house/garden? Would a princess and daughter of henry Vll been expected to do manual work of any kind or just tell the staff what to do? What would be the difference of rising a boy and a girl in skills and activities they were allowed to do?

I also would love book/documentary suggestions to those themes. Thank you

I imagine it wasn’t widely accepted? What caused Einstein to be taken seriously? Was the theory undeniable or did it have detractors?

Also, this argument does not make sense to me. Before that a lot of big organizations were involved with illegal alcohol but still had political power. Why would someone like Vito Corleone believe this?

I recently inherited a box of old family stuff. Going through it I found letters from one of my great uncles from the Civil War, plus some old photographs. Two of the pictures are Civil War era. I'm curious to learn more about this Civil War sergeant. I did grow up hearing a couple stories about him, but I'm not certain how accurate they are (for example, growing up I was told one of my ancestors was a general in the civil war, which isn't quite the same rank). There's also a letter informing his wife that he died at Gettysburg and says there's a medal included, but the medal was not in the box and the letter didn't say what medal he earned. What are the best ways to go about researching this part of my family history? He fought for the Union, if that's relevant. And would a museum be interested in copies of either the letters or the pictures? I'd like to keep the originals.

The rest of the pictures and letters and mostly from the 30s and 40s, though a few photos are dated as early as the 1910s. They're just normal family life pictures, so I assume that they have little historical value. But if I could get advice on how to investigate that part of my family tree too I'd appreciate it.

Also any tips on how to preserve this stuff best is welcome. I've bought acid-free plastic sheets to put them in and I've been told that to digitize them I should avoid a scanner and just take their picture without using a flash, but if there's anything else I should do I'd love to hear it.

I've seen conflicting opinions on this. Some say towards the end of the war he was absolutely addicted to opioids and other drugs whilst others say the man was clean and wouldn't even smoke. As someone who specialises in psychology and studies it the accounts on his personality and who he was would not suggest an addiction or the need to ever take drugs. Yet there are many personal accounts of people close to Hitler claiming his excessive use.

Such as the White House, Capitol Building, NYC, etc

According to a TED talk I watched from a few years ago, France adopted sustainable forestry management practices hundreds of years ago in order to preserve France's oak forests. Whereas England completely clear cut forests of the British Isles and Ireland with no sustainable practices. I read somewhere that the French imported these forestry practices into the tiny short lived settlement of Akaroa in New Zealand. I am curious to know whether this was really the case in New France, and whether the British, Dutch and Spanish had similar or differing forestry practices. In terms of rate of deforestation, I have heard Canada does reasonably well by global standards with preserving its boreal forests; I am curious to know whether this has its roots in New France and if so, whether this was affected by the French and Indian War and subsequent British annexation.

This is half a joke but also very serious for me. So in middle school and high school there was always talk in history class about the spice trade and this and that with Denmark and the British and all the money they made and people they exploited to get spices etc. So my question is this, what did they do with all those spices? They certainly didn't make their way into "traditional" cooking. Most European food I've had and made has been devoid of any interesting spices from south east Asia or the other places they were getting spices from.

So what did they do with all the spices? Did they also buy Asian cookbooks? Were spices used haphazardly to make curries too shameful to remember? Did they hoard them like dragons? Eat them raw for the sheer spicey joy? Did they only ever buy black pepper and they occasional ginger root? WAS THE "SPICE TRADE" A PUBLIC SCHOOL EUPHEMISM FOR DRUGS AND SLAVES?

I have no clue about anything. Someone hit me with some spicey culinary market history.

In video games, people often use anti-tank weapons like the bazooka and PIAT against infantry. But was this actually a thing during WW2?

I have seen this plot point in a few shows and books where they would demand that vikings would be baptized as part of their deal. It always seemed ridiculous to me. I am an atheist so I might be biased.

Did this happen in history or is it just a fictional plot point?

Hello everyone, so my American Urban History professor assigned us a 12-14 final paper and there is some wording that seems to have me confused. Full disclosure: I have most of the main bodies done, just not this one yet. Here is the wording: What assumptions about economic change, culture, and human nature seem to inform the various approaches in these studies? What exactly is he asking here? So is he asking about their assumptions made by the authors before they went into detail about it in their monographs or is he asking about the detailed assumptions made in their text or something else? I am assuming the second, but I do not want to leave this to be an assumption. Thanks in advance. I am sure that I am making a mountain out of a molehill.

Hello, I will be writing a book and the events are taking place in the 19th century. I would like to know was it possible for the Spanish higher class to have a villa in the french suburbs? Also which French villages were blooming in the 19th century? I will be mainly making my book based on fiction, however I do not want it to be too far from History.

I recently finished watching Taboo, which is an excellent show by the way, and it depicted the East India as essentially being a global super power, almost entirely independent of the British crown in 1814. How accurate is this, and if not, what was the full scale of their influence?