So I believe that up until the 18th century or so the primary way to preserve water was with alcohol. And since Islamic societies banned alcohol, how did they survive, or did I get something wrong about history?

I just watched 1917 (loved it) but the story suggests to me that the war was a lot more mobile than I understood. The reasons why I state this is because,

1. The tactics involve Germans falling back to trap 1600 men. This to me suggests there was local tactical manoeuvres.
2. At the end the charging British seemed in Fresh trenches. There was grass nearby, it didn't seem riddled with mud, etc.

So, my question. Is this movie an accurate depiction of the experience of WW1? Is it possible that it is accurate for certain battles and events, but those are rare? Or is my assumption of muddy trenches that never move a part of the war, but not necessarily all of it?

While the U.S. military was the first to adopt a standard issue semi-automatic rifle in the M1 Garand, what stopped them from making the BAR standard issue? To my knowledge it was always designed to be an automatic rifle so why force it into a LMG role and adopt an entirely new rifle when a BAR set to semi-auto could do the same job?

Hi! I am new to this subreddit, so I hope this complies with the rules I looked at. Basically, I am a sophomore in high school and I would love to look into historical preservation as a career. I don't know much about the field, but I know that I have a passion for historical art, and specifically architecture. Are there any paths within this career field that work hands-on with preserving historic art and architecture? I also would love to have the opportunity to study abroad and work within different cultures, if possible. If there are careers like this, I am still at a loss for what college path I will need to take. I know that I will most likely need to get a master's, but most schools do not offer direct (undergrad) historic preservation majors. I am willing to double major/minor in order to do this. I know this is a mess of a post, but any help would be greatly appreciated!

So American comic books originally showed superhero’s taking down Hitler and the Axis. So did Germany, Japan or Italy have their own comics/cartoons depicting people taking down the allies?

A popular internet meme suggests that women in 15th century Turkey could divorce their husbands for simply not providing them with enough coffee. How true is this? What did divorce look like in the Ottoman empire in the 15th century?

I know both countries operated in unison during the conflict, however, were there any instances of US and ANZAC line units fighting together in specific battles?

Various rich Russians are portrayed in War and Peace as having a sort of "swear jar" for accidentally speaking French. The reader is given to understand that the normal language of conversation among these people was French, but because Napoleon was at that time causing such a great deal of worry and bother, there was a patriotic desire to return to Russian, but the desire sometimes outran their actual ability to speak it. An absent nobleman is described with some scorn as having actually hired a tutor in order to learn Russian. So whenever these folks accidentally slipped into French, they'd have to pay a penalty.

Is all this a reasonable portrayal of the language abilities of the kind of high society that's being portrayed there? Did this class of persons know only enough Russian for practical necessities (e.g. to tell the foreman to tell the peasants to go harvest the southwest field on Thursday) and try to have all their advanced philosophical/social conversations in French? And are we aware of any genuine attempt to eschew French in favor of Russian during the Napoleonic Wars?

My grandfather often spoke of how he volunteered for the Army shortly after Pearl Harbor because, while he was eager to do his part, he didn’t want to “end up in the infantry” or “stuck on a boat” in the Navy. He figured he would be drafted anyway if he didn’t volunteer and his best chance of getting assigned somewhere preferential would be to enlist early, which he said was a common belief at the time among his friends. He ended up as a tank mechanic in Africa and Italy, spending the war mostly in the relative safety and comfort of rear areas, but I suspect he got this assignment primarily because he had strong technical aptitude and experience working at a service station (as well as building modular homes and working in the CCC) before the war and may not have had much, if anything, to do with him volunteering, and his beliefs were just bolstered by confirmation bias of not ending up in the infantry.

Did men who volunteered get any kind of preference for roles assigned, other than, of course, branch of service (eg Navy vs Army)? Was his belief that he would get a better assignment by volunteering early rather than waiting to be drafted founded in reality or just a false belief that was confirmed in his mind by a fortuitous assignment? Perhaps he also observed (without really knowing the reason) that those he knew who were drafted later in the war, were just more likely due to circumstance to end up as replacements for casualties and therefore inherently more likely to be assigned to combat roles?

He was American, but I would be interested to know if this was true in other countries as well.

I’m writing an epic fantasy based on Sub Saharan Africa and I want to know if there are a group of warriors with a set combat style, code, and training system similar to what we know for knights or samurai? I think I saw a post where someone mentioned a danzo a long time ago but I haven’t been able to find any information on them.

Presumably some areas were occupied by Confederate troops, and thus couldn't send in their votes. How was this handled? Were there any proposals to cancel or postpone the elections?

Nowadays we name things by the last name, as it probably is more unique than a first name. Why didn't Mr. Vespucci do so?

Or, it seems most things in the era are named by first names (royalty in particular). When and why did this change? (or, Georgia, Georgetown, Virginia, )

But at some point switched to last names (Columbia, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, cook islands).

PS how did they come up with place name suffixes. or: George>Georgia. Columbus>Columbia. Amerigo>America. Penn>Pennsylvania

I know the Danelaw in Britain was eventually taken over by English kings, but what happened to the ethnically/culturally Norse people who had settled there in the meantime? Were they wiped out or did they assimilate into the native culture, gradually losing their Norse identity?

I heard someone mention this and decided to do some research on the subject, but there seems to be no definitive consensus or overwhelming evidence on the matter. Some reputable scholars stand by the claim that the United States did. I was wondering if someone on AskHistorians could breakdown claims that the United States used biological weapons and what is the best proof?

A few weeks ago I learned about the assassination attempts by the CIA on Castro and ever since it has boggled my mind. Everything from exploding cigars to poisoned wet suits to hiring the mafia to travel to Cuba. Anything I could think of they tried on Castro, yet after 600 attempts they still could not succeed. Across eight presidents and 40 years not a single one of these plans worked to completion.

Maybe I have a poor grasp on what the CIA does but looking at the history of the organization it seems like they are well versed in disrupting entire countries. It seems like this is the exact thing they would be great at doing, yet Castro died at the age of 90 long after he had stopped governing Cuba.

This really confuses me and really interests me. Was the CIA just completely incompetent? Did Castro have an amazing security force? Was he the luckiest man on the planet? Did other things besides attacks on his life count as assassination attempts?

With the overwhelming amount of advice being an unequivocal "do not get your phd in History!" I believe we will continue to see fewer and fewer 'professional' historians- the jobs simply aren't there and the schools just aren't offering the degrees.

I am someone who was planning on pursing my PhD in History but, as I'm sure many of those who frequent this subreddit can relate, I reluctantly decided not to pursue it after the mountains of posts here and elsewhere advising not to (and the fact that my University gutted their history department down to a handful of tenured professors didn't hurt to underscore the point). With my bachelors in History and no job offers, I went to a coding bootcamp and landed a fantastic job as a Software Developer.

BUT like any of you with similar stories, intellectually I'm pretty miserable. My passion is History, and my drive to study (and my thesis idea!) has not dwindled. I tried to be happy with having History as a 'hobby', but I'm increasingly frustrated and every few months I think 'screw it, I'm going to go back to school' before reminding myself of the realities.

I'm wondering if any of you see the field of History opening up to those without academic credentials in the future, given that there will continue to be a paucity of professionally employee Historians. A great aspect of History is that it's relatively open to self-learning, especially in collaboration with other scholars via the Internet, however in the past there has been a pretty tight control of 'professional'/academic History requiring a PhD.

Is there any hope for those like me to one day be able to get my work published in an academic journal, or to be able to work with those at an academic level without the legitimacy conferred by a higher degree?

Everything that I can find from googling indicates that William remained Duke of Normandy after becoming King of England. At this point in time, is Normandy still part of France, or was it considered part of English territory? Was the nation that it belonged to secondary to the lord that it belonged to? Was the King of England also a subject of the French crown during this period? Normandy is French territory today, but was that ever disputed by William's descendants? If so, how did the territory end up restored to French rule?

I know that homosexuality was prevalent in ancient Greece and Rome, and among Native American tribes. Though recently I've read that even in ancient Islamic cultures and groups, it was not as bad as it is now. Is there any truth to that?

Why did England give the Irish a measure of freedom in 1922? And even provide military support to the new government in its civil war with the Republicans?

This was decades before India received its independence.

Was it fear of Irish American sentiment? Or something else?