It is well known that polar explorers often suffered from scurvy, but the Inuit living in the far north did not. What about the Iceland and Greenland Norse? Is there evidence of scurvy on the dead bodies? How about writings or depictions about symptoms of scurvy? (Caused by a deficit of vitamin C).

Let's say I'm living in the hills of say, Georgia, deep in Appalachia during the American Civil War. Would there be anyway for me to know there is a war going on?

[deleted]

I have a self directed project for school and have chosen a topic where I need a source looking at German government spending after economic crisis like the end of the First or Second World Wars, and the great depression. Right now I can't find those records and so I'm lost and unable to get started. Please help.

now "long" I mean for comparison sake 1866 was when Africans got full citizenship why did it take natives over 50 years to become citizens

I was thinking about buying my friend a quill pen and ink bottle because he is an author and I thought it would be a nice gift but he is left handed. How would he be able to write with a quill if his hands go over wet ink when he writes?

I'm looking to get back Into Learning about WW2, and to be honest, YouTube isn't really cutting it much anymore, and with he way things are, I don't know what to trust.

Anything from 1918, to 1950 (From the lead up, to the years after), any country, army, battle, over look, anything I can add to a Christmas list, because it's been some time since I've actually cared about History

I was reading about the Winter War earlier today and all I could find for why it started was that the Soviet Union demanded Finland concede some territory and went to war when Finland refused. But that doesn't seem like a great answer. Why did the Soviets think they were entitled to that land? The Finns aren't Slavic people, so I don't think they could have claimed it was rightfully Soviet territory. So, why did the Soviets think they had a right to Finnish land?

A colleague and I were recently debating whether or not Roosevelt's actions in negotiating peace between the Soviet Union and Japan in 1905 came at the cost of Korea's independence. All I knew about this situation is that Roosevelt received a Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the matter; and so I researched.

The claim is that Roosevelt essentially "gave" Korea to Japan despite not having the moral grounds to do so. He cited that Roosevelt made secret communications with Japan expressing sympathy with their cause due to their common enemy being the Soviet Union. Roosevelt cut off all relations with Korea, turned the American legation in Seoul over to the Japanese military and deleted the word “Korea” from the State Department’s Record of Foreign Relations and placed it under the heading of “Japan.” Considering what happened to Korea at the hands of both the Soviet Union and Japan after that, (which you can learn about in all its gruesome and terrifying detail in Louise Yim's book "My Forty Year Fight for Korea" - seriously recommend) I was surprised to learn that this was not more common knowledge.

Did Roosevelt have any legitimate reason to do this or was he even responsible? In doing so did he betray Korea and her chances to be a prosperous and unified nation? I do not know much about the Soviet Union's influence in this matter either. If someone could enlighten and help me to reach a more definitive answer, it would be much appreciated as it is a matter of great interest to me.

As I understand, mongols rule could be divided into 4 areas: Russia, Persia, Mongolia, and China.

In China, Kubilai Khan, tried to assimiliate in chinese culture to be accepted by Chinese. This later on backfired and Ming rebels forced Mongols to leave from China. However, In Russia and Persia, the mongols leadership converted to Islam over time and carried Islam forward at the global stage in the form of Gunpowder Empires (Ottoman, Safavid, and Moghuls.)

The question is why Mongols converted to islam in Middle east as opposed to chrisitanity, or Hinduism, Buddhism, other religions?

[deleted]

I will start out by saying I’m fairly new to Norwegian history, so my knowledge is limited and very surface level. From what I can gather, Norway has been dominated by other regional powers at an unusually high rate.

Denmark repeatedly has seen its king on Norway’s throne, annexing them in the nation Denmark-Norway and ruling over them in the Kalmar Union. Sweden forced Norway into a union from 1814 to 1905 and earlier ruled them in 1319 to 1343. Arguably even England saw rule over Norway (although with this I’m referring to Cnut the Great. Yes he was Danish, but he was technically King of England first) from 1028 to 1035. There are other cases, but these are the most notable.

My question is if this was just bad luck, or if there was a decidable and definite reason for Norway being dominated by regional powers at such a high rate? Thank you in advance for any answers provided.

Oh and I’m not sure if this is a bad question for this subreddit, so I apologise if it is.

I’ve been on a holocaust literature binge recently ( namely “Night” and “Man’s Search For Meaning”) and I keep seeing them talk about the stolen goods when they were admitted to camp and furthermore when they were evicted from their homes. I’m aware of the hair and shoe displays at Auschwitz, but I’m specifically interested in valuable goods such as those I mentioned in the title and other items possibly including art or heirlooms. Thank you!

I've been reading about WW1 and it surprises me how, though the British Empire and France were, by far, the world's greatest colonial powers. One would think that such and advantage could have permitted them to dominate the international marketplace, and military strategic locations, somehow alike today's global dominance by the US. The British and the French have the power to control international politics, to crush local rebellions everywhere in their dominions and gain economical leverages of all sorts through their control of international trade policies.

Russia was another story. I don't know if perhaps Russia was the relatively "weak link" who allowed Germany to develop. Although it held enormous territory and vast population, Russia was governed by an obsolete, semi-feudal tsarist system, with incompetent leaders and poorly prepared armed forces, mostly consisting in undertrained peasant conscripts. Russia, still, was no piece of cake, and its alliance with Great Britain provided them with technology, weapons, and most of all, international support.

In contrast, the German Reich was a relatively young state, that experienced a late unification. It had rather poor colonial presence and was geographically surrounded by rivals, which organized a diplomatic "firewall" against its expansionist aspirations called "the Entente Cordiale". Germany had only one maritime connection in the Baltic. To trade internationally, it basically had to negotiate with the British, the Russians and the French.

In this context, I'm having trouble understanding how did Germany manage to become so powerful it could pose such a threat to its giant rivals.

Some authors even suggest that if Russia had sign the Brest-Litovsk treaty earlier, the Germans could have defeated the Allies.

How did Germany manage to become such a powerful Nation (economically and militarily) and pose such a threat to the forces of the two greatest colonial powers combined, which made them so difficult to defeat in WW1?

Thank you

I watched the movie and wanted to know if it was an actual thing and how much it really affected the economy and how bad it was. When googling it, all I could find is information about the movie though.

Note: I'm not asking whether they should. My question is more about why these concepts aside from others were chosen to be personified and why they were chosen specifically as women?

I'm not that well read on Queen Victoria's biography, admittedly, but my understanding at least is that she and Albert had an incredibly close attachment, certainly a level of affection seen as rather unusual for a royal couple in that period when royal marriages were arranged, and that this played a large part in their public image during his lifetime, and even afterwards given her extended period of mourning following his death.

So anyways, the core question I have here is how this public image played with the public, and how it impacted ideas of 'Romantic Love' and marriage in the period, as that is of course a concept that is quite culturally dependent on just what it means for a given time and place. Did the example of a Queen and consort who, by all appearances, were a close, affectionate couple deeply in love serve to shape the broader ideas for romance and courtship during her reign?

Title says it all. Also, when and why were BCE (before common era) and CE (common era) used to replace BC and AD? Are the latter really replaced now, or is it just that I tend to see more usage of the former?

Hi good Day!

This is my first question and I hope I am following the guidelines. It has to deal with railway history in 1863. Specifically the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. I am currently co-authoring a novel, and I have found that we can get our protagonist from Washington DC to St. Joseph MO by rail in 1863 (He needs to go to California), however, my quandary lies in the speed of the trip itself. In my research, I cannot find the actual miles of the rail lines (I believe it might be 1190 miles), nor the speed of the locomotives of the time. As well, as I understand, the locomotives would pull into a town so passengers could grab food supplies for the next days journey. Any help would be appreciated about how long this trip would take would be appreciated. I understand weather, ground conditions, etc would all play factors.

Edited for clarification:
My Research efforts have included;
Library of Congress, Federal Highway Administration as well as the B&O Rail Historical Museum

Thank you in advance!

V/R

Rich