I don’t know If this is the place for this question but I thought I’d try here. I always wondered why it seems that for military rifles it went from breach loading muskets and break action rifles straight to bolt action and how lever action rifles never seemed to be used. I looked into it a little bit and only found the US and The Russian empire ever seemed to use lever actions in a capacity be it a “smaller” one. I was just wondering what, if there was a reason choosing bolt action over lever action. If this isn’t the place to ask this I would greatly appreciate knowing a better place. Thank you and have a good day.

In the letters written by Cortes, he explains the reason for the massacre was protection from perceived and confirmed ambush by the natives. In the second letter H. Cortes claims the attack by the natives was being coordinated and there was proof such as rocks on roofs and roads being closed in attempt to setup an ambush.

In contrast the Aztec codex (as read in the book The Broken spears) claims that the attack by the Spaniards was unprovoked. The Aztec stated that this massacre was an attempt to send fear to Motecuhzoma.

I think there's a fine line between both stories. The Aztec playing innocent and the Spaniards exaggerating the events to justify the massacre.

The question to you is, is there an accepted version in which the Aztecs conspired to kill the Spaniards in Cholula? I think most attacks by the Spaniards were unprovoked such as the Tenochtitlan massacre that spawned the first retaliation by the natives in the night of sorrows.

Just looking to geek out with anyone here about the Aztec conquest.

From what I have learned the Incan did not have maps or writing in the modern sense. So, how was the Sapa Inca able to track what was under his rule?

In Anna Karenina, one of the main characters is in anxious anticipation of a proposal that she expects to receive at a ball. While she has danced with this particular suitor several times in the evening, she seems regard the quadrille and the waltz almost dismissively - and puts much greater significance to whether he would ask for the mazurka.

But Kitty had not expected more from the quadrille, she waited with a clutch at her heart for the mazurka. It seemed to her that the mazurka would settle everything.

Other characters did too - one is shocked to find her seated during the mazurka and quickly scrambles to find her a partner at the last minute.

I looked up the dance - it's a rustic paired group dance with Polish origins - fast, fun, and for lack of a better description - folksy. Not the hot tango that the text would have you believe.

Is the significance of this dance just particular to Tolstoy's fictional setting and social set? Or was there a basis in reality for it to have such social significance - that a young woman might have felt it literally* a life and death matter?

she falls seriously ill as a result of what transpired at this ball; other characters fear for her recovery, and she is forced to go abroad to a convalescent village

In I, Claudius, both the book and television adaptation, several of Claudius's friends and acquaintances find their life of courtly comfort in the imperial center upended as, for one reason or another (usually because they got in the way of the magnificent Livia Drusilla's plots and schemes) they end up subject to temporary or lifelong exile.

The books contain several descriptive passages of exiles' destinations, noting that the places they're sent to are bleak, isolated, and lacking in all of the comforts epitomized by the Roman imperial core. The television adaptation gives a similar idea, depicting characters like Claudius's friend Postumus living, in exile, in small, dilapidated shacks with only Roman legionnaires for company.

In both cases, it's unclear to me how such men and women were feeding and clothing themselves in the first place, how much financial independence they might be permitted to have, etc. But the idea that this is a severe material downgrade, the loss of basically all luxury and comfort (including the labor of servants and enslaved workers), comes through pretty clearly.

​

Was this the case in the actual Roman empire in the actual imperial period? Was exile for prominent people really as materially grim as all that? Were some Roman exiles housed in more comfortable conditions, with their wants tended to by enslaved workers as they were pre-exile? Or, perhaps, did some exiles, through wherewithal, taking advantage of local corruption, etc. successfully get themselves the "Goodfellas prison scene" sort of treatment? Is there anything that could be said of a "typical" exile experience, perhaps one that changes over time?

​

Thank you for reading!

I'm not sure if this is the place to be asking, or if anyone here knows a lot about UK small arms, but I've always wondered why did the Commonwealth of the UK decide to use 2 five-round stripper clips instead of a singular 10 round stripper clip for the SMLE rifles? Was this more of a practical thing where it is easier to carry 2 five-round stripper clips and fit them in your webbing/musette bag, etc. or was it for some other reason? Like, 10 round stripper clips weren't easy to use and load or if there wasn't really a need for it. I understand the thought process where you are issued with one magazine and then you reload via stripper clips. So, if anyone knows the answer to this oddly specific question I'd appreciate it.

Due to time, financials, and energy, students nowadays tend to have a fairly pathetic diet (or maybe I am the only one). Raman noodles, frozen food to be put in the oven, microwavable dishes (leftovers), Uber Eats. That is the typical diet for a university student where I live.

The gas oven wasn't invented until 1826, and wasn't common for decades after that, same with stoves. Microwaves were not even in the realm of comprehension at that point. So what was the typical diet of a middle-class student in university? Was everyone just in centralized housing with a common eating area? What were the snacks they would have?

One of my favorite carved sculptures is of Kuan Yin in a British museum, but I only have a general understanding of the history of Buddhism and the different Bodhisattva beliefs in different countries. I have read that "In Chinese Buddhism, Guan Yin is synonymous with the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, the pinnacle of mercy, compassion, kindness and love" and her general wikipedia entry. I would love to hear more from a specialist.

The Nazi high command was put on trial during the Nuremberg Trials and such, but what happened to the Hitler Youth? Were they merely shrugged off and brought back to their families or did they get punishment?

With all of this free time in quarantine i have been watching Vikings and quite a few shows that are 'period pieces' and we are wondering, what did women in the viking times do about menstruating?? Were there any products for it or social stigma around it?

Some interesting books about Wu Zetian? I don’t know anything about her, so I’m interested mostly in a book that starts with her and ends when she dies. So it follows her throughout her life.

So my wife and I are talking about slavery and had a question specifically of the 13 Colonies. It was to my understanding that there was slavery everywhere until the Proclamation. She doesn't think that ALL the colonies had them. Just didn't want to argue all day about this. Thanks in advance!

To my knowledge, the majority of the hadiths were written 100-200 years after Muhammad's deaths and contain many things that are either glossed over or omitted entirely by the Quran, including specific laws and requirements for behavior. What caused these texts compiled 200 years after his death to become so central to Islamic thought, philosophy, and law as opposed to following only the Quran?

Cinema tends to show armies lining up, firing a volley or two of arrows and then charging in the infantry. Obviously there is more than one issue with this portrayal but my question is regarding the frequency of friendly fire. We're arrow volleys as organized as this or were archers given leeway to fire as they saw fit? Also if it was the latter would an archer even be able to distinguish friend from foe?

I know that the Normans had invaded and conquered parts of Wales after the conquest of England, and that Edward I annexed Wales into the Kingdom of England during his reign, but what prompted Parliament to pass these laws over 200 years later?

I’ve been baking with a sourdough starter for a while now and just thought, if people have made sourdough for thousands of years what did they think of yeast? The starter has to be fed or it will die so did pre-microscope bakers know yeast was alive even though they couldn’t see it?

Also, how did the poets use this kind of building and would it be too bold to assume that a temple of Apollo could have been there in buildings like this?