I'm currently writing a story. In the story a bunch of boys from 1890 London are outside playing a game. What are some games a group of boys might get together to play?

Also, could boys in this time period have a slingshot to play with. I'm specifically wondering about the kind of slingshot that is a piece of wood that looks like a "Y" with a large rubber band across the two upright arms of the "Y".

Thank you for your replies.

In nearly every piece of (Western) media that features pirates, they all have the same language patterns and are spoken with the same kind of accent. Is this based at all in reality? If so, was it pervasive among pirates at the time? If not, how did it become so commonplace in our media?

Hi all.

​

The post was about the casualty rates in line infantry warfare, and one of the points was that "People weren't really aiming at each other, but above each other. During training, they hit their targets even after 50 meters (which to my understanding is the optimal line infantry engagement distance)."

​

If I remember correctly, it was a German officer in the 18th century that conducted the experiment. A white sheet as tall and wide as an infantry battalion (or unit) seen from a hundred meters away was stretched and after the volley, almost all bullets had hit (a volley of 100 shots resulted in 90ish holes).

​

Now of course there are instances where you might have hit the sheet but not the unit because the bullet went between two heads, grazed a shoulder etc. Still a line infantry unit is tightly packed and you should be hitting guys in the 2nd and 3rd rows in the "bullet went between two heads" sort of situations.

​

I have spent my entire morning trying to find that post but I couldn't. Do I remember it correctly? Are there other similar experiments like this? After I learned this, I assumed "Well the muskets-are-inaccurate-theory should dissolve in the academia, this obviously refutes that theory..." but then found many comments here still defending the musket inaccuracy, or at least saying "Historians are split on this issue". If this historical anecdote is true, then why are we still contesting the idea of super inaccurate muskets (or do we?)

What are primary sources for rule of Julius Nepos in Dalmatia between 475. and 480.? Are there any written accounts on him from that period and after? Also, how many archeological evidence exist? Thank you in advance.

First and foremost Slavery is inherently evil and that is not what this is about. Let me explain....

In my middle school located in South Georgia I had a teacher who suggested that the way we as American understand the treatment of Slaves leading up to the Civil War is not nearly as close to reality as we are to believe and that it instead was exponentially horrified to get a hesitant populace to charge gung-ho into battle. His arguments are as follows.

The Northern Factory owners were dissatisfied with how much wealth was located in the Southern region and not because of businesses like theirs. African Americans as people were not Frontline like we are taught hence the difficulty in giving them rights after freedom and it also explains the Scorched Earth tactics Sherman did burning literally everything to the ground. It forced large numbers of the populace to move North or West and boom a large workforce suddenly appears. He said that little, if any talk was done to give Slaves a minimum wage therefore keeping them were they currently were and leaving the South's economy the same if not improving it was not an option because those behind the scenes did not just want Slaves to be simple freed from an Evil Institution.

He argued Slaves were not systemically mistreated on such a large scale like the books and pictures that were circulated suggested because Slaves cost money and if they treated them worse than Cattle the Plantation Owners would have gone bankrupt trying to keep a workforce. He also suggested that the lack of large scale Slave revolts showed they weren't treated badly. To prove his point of that he showed the large scale horrific Slave revolts that constantly occurred in the Caribbean, Central and South America to the point that Slavery was discontinued. He argued that Slaves in the South heavily outnumbered any Overseers watching them and if they truly wanted to rebel they would have.

I want to know if there is any academic support for this line of thought, or if this is just another Pro-Slavery Tell Myself These Things To Sleep Better At Night kind of thing.

Alexander the great's conquests were done with such speed that it puts even the mongol conquests of the same region to shame. In my perspective, given that he barely fought in a lot of the regions before achieving political supremacy, doesn't it seem like Alexander's conquests were 'too easy' in terms not of beating military opponents but in terms of achieving political supremacy. Was the world that alexander took over really so willing to give over political and economic leadership to a guy whose army was smaller in comparison to the population of even some of the bigger regional cities?

Hello,

I am looking for books that have to do with machinists at home and how the total war effort affected them. If there are any personal accounts or oral histories, it would be fascinating to read them. I have been a machinist for 2 years, before that I was going to be a history teacher. Always had a love for WWII.

Thanks for any help!

Reading the odyssey in school, curious about if any of it is even the slightest true.

Theater nerds and dramaturgs,

I'm shocked - shocked - at my inability to locate Grand Guignol scripts. I own Richard Hand and Micheal Wilson's Exeter Performance Studies books, which contain ~21 translated scripts, but have been entirely unable to find anything outside of a catalogue of plays and a couple Dover Classics translations. I've scoured Google Scholar in english and french, but have been hampered by my terrrrrrrible french and research abilities.

Are the bulk of André de Lorde's & Oscar Méténier's scripts just... gone? Is this the sort of thing that has gone undigitized, or are they simply lost to time?

I know that the US army was fully mechanised and didn't use any horses but what about the British

The review, which was published in the New York Tribune in 1922, seems to have a joking, lighthearted tone. But F. Scott Fitzgerald really did use his wife’s words in his writing. It was a source of tension between them and, from what I’ve read, has led to some heated debate among academics. However, I haven’t found anything that references contemporary public responses.

Did the public take this accusation seriously? If so, did it in any way impact their opinions on the book or the author? F. Scott Fitzgerald seemed to feel entitled to use his wife’s words without crediting her—was this unusual for the time, or was Zelda’s resentment and public callout the outlier?

She was born 1864 in Buffalo, New York. Would naming your daughter Frank after her uncle be considered an unheard of or at least eccentric choice in that time and place?

Recently I was at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, and they’ve got a small exhibit about coffee coming to England. What struck me was how closely it was associated with Turkey in British discourse. I was wondering, given that Vienna is a city rather known for its coffee culture, when this started to be the case, given that if it had the same Turkish association as in Britain it might be quite frowned upon by some. When did Austria/Vienna start to consume coffee in significant quantities, was there a significant Turkish association, and was there any significant backlash to coffee?

Keep it, burn it like Washington, or use it as a temporary base for the war? Was there much of a long term plan, or were they focused more on taking it first?

Growing up, in school I was taught this as "fact" in several history classes. As I have developed a relatively casual interest in the history of the medieval period, I have come to doubt it's validity for a number of reasons. First, it seems very far-fetched, and runs counter to my limited knowledge of the period, to assume that this clean cut and rigidly defined system was used over either the entirety of time periods and geographical regions encompassed by the term "medieval times." Second, I am aware of a few examples that based on my limited reading on the topic absolutely did not follow this model. For instance, it is my understanding that neither William Marshal of 12th century England or Marshal Boucicaut of 14th century France followed this stereotypical model. To follow up, were there any places or times that did follow this model in the path to knighthood? If not, where did this idea originate? Thank You

As someone who principally focused on science in my schooling, I've hardly read up on history. This changed after reading Sapiens, Guns Germs & Steel, and some curiosity driven research in my spare time.

I am very new to this and would love a compelling read on just about anything. War, lifestyle, art, politics, etc. Assume I know very little.

Examples of some interesting things to me: ancient civilizations (Persia, China, Rome, Greeks, Babylon, Inca, Egypt, etc.), medieval times (Holy Roman Empire, Bohemia), religion, and relatively modern events (American history).

I appreciate your time and advice, I know there is a book list out there but I would like guidance on where to start instead of picking a book that might overwhelm me/be too specific :).

Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet, making the land sacred to both Christians and Muslims.

Since Judaism doesn't recognize either as prophets, why was Israel established where it is right now?

I've read the pre-famine Irish diet was about 90% potatoes. If this is correct, it begs the question of what the results on growth and health were.

It obviously didn't hurt fertility rates, but do we have any descriptions of lower class Irish people living on this restricted diet? Were they healthy? Tall and well built or stunted?

What else was in their diet?

I'm listening to H.W. Brands' biography of Andrew Jackson and Brands puts forward a story I hadn't heard of before. At the beginning of the chapter following Jackson's victory at the battle of New Orleans, Brands paints a picture of an America not just ready to fall, but falling. With points such as the ruins of DC and the "seditious" Federalist convention at Hartford, Brands suggests that the United States were, at best, about to become simply disunited. Of course, he is doing all this in order to name Jackson the savior of America, but, bias aside, I wonder how far off the mark he really is.

Is Brands' portrayal of an all but toppled America accurate?