This is for a story I am writing. It's set in 1970 USA and I have been researching how the characters are both not involved in the war and not in jail.

I understand that often medical conditions could allow men to stay home, but how scrutinised were they. I know some prominent figures like Donald Trump and Ted Nugent avoided it through " bone spurs" and "Crystal meth causing him to deficate himself". Was this so easy for "your regular citizen" or was this more because of who they were.

If a person chose not to use a medical condition for avoidance, and went to jail, were they jailed for the entirety of the war? If not, what happened upon release.

How were they viewed in society.

Any responses (with source if possible) would be massively appreciated and if any of you have some interesting ways people avoided the war I'd love to hear about them

Thanks so much everyone!

I heard that Sweden was poor during the 19th century before implementing economic reforms which would ultimately allow them to implement socialism

Did the Celtic People have a written language? Did they have a word for blue?

I imagine people who traveled often or had widespread connections—merchants, nobility, and the like—would have known there was a major plague going on. But would the average commoner in a village in Western Europe have known that the disease extended past their local area? Would the have comprehended how widespread it was? How much warning would they likely have had that the plague was spreading before it actually reached them?

A lot of different media tells differing tales on this. Some (unsurprisingly the ones that have them as protagonists) portray them as proud revolutionaries who wanted to keep away from the crown. Others (the ones where they're the antagonists) portray them as selfish gold seekers who wanted nothing but to expand their pockets.

Hello everyone,

I'm hoping to learn more about the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent Civil War. I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations regarding these topics. I'd probably want to read about the war of independence first and then about the civil war, but books covering one or both topics would be greatly appreciated.

since that time Elam had been overtaken by Babylonians several times and then raised by Ashurbanipal in the 7th Century B.C... Yet the Stele remained until it was found by archaeologist Gustav Jéquier in 1901 in the ruins of Susa. Why didnt those Mesopotamian Rulers retrieve the Stele and return it to Babylon?

I believe it is accepted that the Indo Europeans migrated from the Russian Steppe, one branch went into India and the other to Iran. I also believe it is accepted that the Iranian Avestan religion and Hinduism are both branches of a common Indo-European religion.

Is it true that the Asura - Daevas clashes represent the tribal conflicts of these migrating people from the Steppe? Like the title says - their roles are swapped in their respective religions.

In addition - is there anything in the Vedas / Hinduism that can be traced to actual historical fact (such as the battle of the 10 kings or whatever) ?

Sorry if this has been asked before— will happily read an old thread if anyone has link.

Okay... so early in the 19th century London became the worlds largest capital, largely due to a migrant population. Why? The layman’s sources I’ve found online say it’s because of migrants from the country looking for work. What was happening to the farms that made people want to go to the city? Famine in Ireland, but what about the rest of Britain? Was something happening in the countryside? Were there tremendous amounts of people coming from other countries?

This question has been bothering me for days and I can’t figure it out!

Thanks in advance! 😸

The only time Spain is discussed in our textbooks is when we talk about Christopher Columbus sailing to the New World, the Florida teritory and the Spanish-American war, and a perhaps a few sentences on the Spanish colonial system when it comes to American meddling in Latin-America(The Mexican-American war and the teritories gained, the Banana Republics and regime changes with the Cold War, etc...), but yet, there is almost no information on Spain assisting the USA on its independence in our textbooks. I am latino and didn't even know how much influence Spain had until after I graduated high school; they were the most powerful country in the world when the USA was just a colony and instead we only give focus to France? Spain and France were allies and had a lot to gain by weaking the British Empire. Perhaps Spain came out the biggest "winner" as their Empire was still huge at the time.

I even read how the people of Spain felt betrayed when the USA declared war on Spain in the Spanish-American. Imagine it being 1898 and you hear stories about grandparents/great-grandparents helping the US become its own country only for them to declare war on you.

Did the Spanish-American war become a deciding factor in which our curriculum ignores Spain and gives attention to France?

I'm writing a report on the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 and I wanna clarify some things. Are "labor union" and "labor organization" interchangeable? Or does one word fall under the umbrella of another? I'd like to confirm, as well, what the two words meant back in 1932. If someone can send a link to a dictionary from around that time period I'd really appreciate it. Thanks so much.

Why didn't the early holy roman empire try to conquer france and lower italy

Hi everyone, I'm writing my final year research project on whether missionary schools and the stolen generations were an act of genocide against the aboriginal Australian people. My university has closed due to the coronavirus and my local libraries have all closed too so I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations to online secondary reading I can access to help me? Thank you in advance

When looking at the geography of Eastern Europe, it surprises me that the German advance in World War II wasn't more delayed by river crossings. It seems like a broad theme to me in the war that major powers couldn't use rivers very effectively as natural fortifications, except for a few exceptions (like Stalingrad). The Dnieper and Daugava in particular nearly meet at Smolensk, and seem to create a very natural chokepoint near the city.

So my question is this: suppose Tukhachevsky, some other purged officer, or perhaps an early Zhukov had enough influence to convince Stalin not to underestimate the German army. Could the Soviets realistically have held these two important rivers if they had concentrated their strength farther behind the Axis borders? And perhaps as a side point, the Stalin line seems to overlap in some places with the rivers - do we know why it veers away when the river could've been used instead?

Hi All

I've recently started my undergraduate degree in History and came across a task where I have to consider the global impact of the October Revolution. From my A Levels I'm fairly confident on the wider effects of the Revolution for the RSFSR and USSR, however my studies never looked at the global implications of the Revolution.

As it stands I'm struggling to find materials that help in considering this, if there are any journal articles/documentaries/history books that you could recommend I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

I'm wondering about US and/or Soviet attempts to "reverse engineer" what the other side could detect from aerial or satellite reconnaissance during the Cold War. I've read about efforts to camouflage or disguise sensitive sites so they couldn't be seen from the air, but was there any effort to try to determine what the other side had seen? For example, tracking U-2 flights on radar and then determining what sites they had photographed?

Obviously I know the more fantastical things aren't real like cyclops, Atlantis and super powered aliens.

What I mean is the conflict itself and the interactions of the city states. I'll simplify with direct questions :

1. How common was naval combat? Are the ships in game historically accurate?

2. Were there really mercenaries and bandits just...everywhere?

3. How accurate is the weaponry?

4. How large were the battles? I'm thinking it is a limitation of the system but conquest battles are like...150 dudes tops.

5. Was everyone just having sex with everyone? (Alkibiades I'm looking at you here.)

6. Sokrates, Perikles, Kleon, Brasidas, Pausanias, Archidamos, - all portrayed correctly? Did Sokrates help Perikles and overthrow Kleon? (I know Kleon and Brasidas died in the battle of Amphipolis - I googled that much at least)

7. Oracles, Pythia and fortune tellers: were they all so trusted that they literally threw children from cliffs over their word?

8. Speaking of Pythia, was it really the Spartan Pythia who stopped Leonidas from rallying a larger army against the Persians at Thermopylai?

9. What was the truce of Olympia Valley about?

10. Were the Olympics really so small back then? It looks like a 45 minute affair as an excuse to drink all night rather than a big sporting event but they seem to put a ton of importance on who won. Why?

11. Herodotus: did he really just travel the world with random people? More importantly though, is there any evidence of a lost work written by him?

I'm not sure I can respond in a substantial or contributory way because I'm seeking knowledge without much to add to it but I thank anyone who takes the time to answer even one of these questions for me.

How accurate is the story of Hiawatha and Great Peacemaker? What are some good books on the history of the Iroquois from a Native perspective?

Hadn't celtic tribal culture long since evolved (for serious lack of a better term) into what we think of as medieval european cultures? Were there still isolated holdout tribes that were never Romanized, maintaining their "barbarian" traits as late as the high middle ages?