Assuming 90% of the male population was killed, it wouldn't have been too difficult for both countries to resettle the paraguayan land with their own males and thus be able to split the country between themselves. At the time both countries were the most powerful in South America and they also had foreign support from Britain so any intervention would have been unlikely. So why didn't they do it?

Edit: I meant a complete anexation of the land, rather than the partial gains both countries got

That'd be great

Spoke with my 93-year-old grandfather on the phone today (old enough to get drafted for WWII, young enough to get drafted again for Korea). And he mentioned that his basic training in Maryland was not segregated. He told me that racial segregation of the troops came later.

Knowing of racist and segregationist practices of the time, that story took me by surprise.

Is his recollection true? If so, was this common?

So I am very interested in the Eastern Front of WW2. One question keeps popping up in my mind. Why did Case Blue fail and was Stalingrad really that necessary? Was it just a prestige target because of it’s name? Did the Germans reach the Volga in other places? Thank you in advance.

Adolf Hitler wanted everyone to have a volkswagen, he wanted everyone driving around Nazi occupied Europe because he said that "an empire can only be known by road." Why did he say that ???

I graduated university with a FIRST in military history.

I was trusted enough to work for my old lecturer, helping him with one of his research projects over the summer.

But now, i'm working full-time in an office just to make money. Admittedly, i do not think i looked hard enough for a history-related job. I hear of them all the time with people's connections to 'someone' doing 'x' or 'y' and im so envious.

But museum related jobs etc ask for experience that i'm just not sure how the hell to get. And google seems to come up with barely anything.

I KNOW that history specific jobs are 'rare', but i want to work somewhere i enjoy. Not for the money.

I noticed in a lot of older movies and shows a young couple will be shown sleeping in two smaller beds. I don’t know if this was normally the case or not, and I would buy that it was simply taboo to show the couple sleeping together in bed. I know I’ve seen pictures from the Victorian era and earlier of married couples sharing a bed, in bed.

Is there a way to put a price tag in today's USD (or any other currency, really) on a trained warhorse in 12th century Europe?

For clarification, I'm interested about coursers, rounceys and the like (the more "common" types), but I'm also curious about destriers (which, as I understand, were rare and very expensive). Literally any info on the value of any type of warhorse in 12th century Europe would be very helpful.

The various fragments of information I found online (e.g. in the 11th century, warhorses cost between 10 and 50 pounds, or that a 7th century destrier was worth 12 solidi) are not really helpful - there are no sources for these claims, the methods by which these numbers were calculated are not explained, and I have no way of reliably converting these values into today's money.

I'd very much appreciate any info on the subject. Thanks!

EDIT: I should clarify that I'm not expecting anyone to waste their time on exact prices or tedious calculations - rough estimates are more than enough. It doesn't even have to be a monetary value; any way to express value (e.g. hours of labor, ounces of gold or silver, livestock) is much appreciated, as long as it's even remotely possible to figure out what that value would be today.

I am reading a book recently that mentioned that the April 1924 elections in Italy that gave the Fascists the majority there particularly affected the South in a negative way but the book doesn't explain how or why and I was wondering if anyone knew more about this.

I remember hearing a story of the Romans physically moving a statue of another nations God, and bringing it back to Rome and adding it to their pantheon.

Question is, does anyone have any links or reading on this topic as the idea of this interests me but I've so far been unable to actually find anything about it.

Cheers

Hey guys!

Recently I got more and more into the history of Europe in the 16th/17th/18th century.When I came across the United Kingdom back in those years I quickly got lost in the whole peerage-system they had.

What I found so far is that there were titles like Duke/Duchess, Marquess/Marchioness, Earl/Countess, Viscount/Viscountess and Baron/Baroness. There were plenty of them and they all seem to share their interests in politics and war. But they also enjoyed a life in luxury and wealth in the high society.

My big question now is, since I couldn't get any information about this, how did they got the money for that? What were they doing all day long? What tasks were they confronted by with the titles?

With the information I have so far, I think that every man with a title (I don't know which one yet) had their own land which they cared of. On this land there were people living, farmers etc. which had to pay "taxes".

So what I'm imagining right now is for example:

There is a duke. This duke handles a huge piece of land. He collects the taxes off from the earls. These earls got little pieces of the land from the duke and got their money off the farmers and workers on their land. The duke later on gives the money to the king/queen.

As far as I know maraquess lived on the border and were therefor more exposed to intruders, so they were more respected for that and shared their interests in war/politics/military.

So now, I don't know what the role of the viscount was nor baron.

Right now I feel like I completly misunterstood everything I read so far (Or the little pieces of information I mixed up).

Is there anyone that can help me out a little bit?

(p.s.: sorry for my bad englisch, I'm from switzerland. :))

Hi Everyone! My name is Dr Simon Elliott and I am an award-winning and best selling author, historian and broadcaster. I am an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Kent, Ambassador for Museum of London Archaeology and Trustee of the Council for British Archaeology. I have had six books published as below. My twitter handle is @SimonElliott20, and my website is SimonElliott.net. I look forward to chatting to you! Simon

➢ Sea Eagles of Empire: the Classis Britannica and the Battles for Britain, History Press, 2016 (this won Military History Monthly’s Book of the Year Award 2017).

➢ Empire State: How the Roman Military Built an Empire, Oxbow Books, 2017.

➢ Septimius Severus in Scotland: The Northern Campaigns of the First Hammer of the Scots, Greenhill Books, 2018 (an Amazon no 1 best seller).

➢ Roman Legionaries, Casemate, 2018.

➢ Ragstone to Riches: Imperial Estates, Metalla and the Roman Military in the South East of Britain During the Occupation, British Archaeological Reports, 2018.

➢ Julius Caesar: Rome's Greatest Warlord, Casemate, 2019.

[deleted]

We often hear of European colonial powers enslaving Africans and importing them to the Americas, but they also colonized India; did they import slaves there too?

I’m currently writing a story that centers around Viennese coffee house culture, and I’ve found myself looking for information about their typical clientele, what they served, their general reputation, the development of them through history as well the experience of running one / working at one. As detailed information as possible is appreciated.

One of the things I've been interested in while looking at the Achaemenid Empire has been the cultural/ethnic groups that have lived inside of it. Such an empire would've had many different people groups; like the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Jews, the Bactrians and the Ionians. But there are a few questions I'd like to be answered about this subject which have always bugged me:

• Who were the main Ethnic Groups of the Achaemenid Empire asides from the ones mentioned?
• How did this affect the organization of the Achaemenid Empire?
• Were there any attempts at a sort of ethnic/nationalist revolt in the early years of the Empire; ie the Ionian Revolt?
• Why didn't these ethnic/cultural groups attempt to make their own nation-states after the death of Alexander the Great's conquest of the Achaemenid Empire during the Wars of the Diadochi?

In CK2 Zurvanism is describes as

a syncretic form of Zoroastrianism which was practiced among the Sogdians. It mixes Zoroastrianism with Hinduism, Buddhism and various pagan religions.

What specifically was taken from the Buddhist tradition?

The USA nominally practices separation of church and state, and does not normally recognize individual religious laws - whether that be canon law and courts, Jewish law and rabbinical courts, etc. - and I know this has sometimes caused difficulties in the case of Quaker marriages, because the form doesn't follow the (Christian-influenced) procedure. Has this ever caused issues with the recognition of Jewish marriages in the US?

Thinking about the Anglo-Saxon period, what one gets in the British isles are lots of scattered peoples and polities. Why does one see single united kingdoms emerge in England and Scotland circa 10th/11th century, while Ireland and Wales remains divided into smaller units? I'm curious about the impact of geography, outside pressures as well as ideology of creation of these polities, but specifically in adressing why what works for Scotland and England does not work for the two other regions.

Edit: a single kingdom to single united kingdoms. To clarify: I did not mean to suggest that Scotland and England formed a united polity together at this point of time - rather, what I am interested in is why you have two separate independent kingdoms emerging in Scotland and England during this period while both Wales and Ireland remain scattered into little units.

I always have this mental image that Native Americans had always been organized as small migrating bands. How true is this before European colonization?

we all know germany couldn't win the war but i have a hard time compiling the full analogy on why. and every source i could find have a different reason on the subject so if you can refer me to a single comprehensive source I'll be thankful for it