I was just sort of pondering historical odds and ends earlier and came upon the fact that Albania is majority Muslim, unless I'm mistaken. Which got me wondering why did Albania end up Muslim? Other Balkan nations such as Bulgaria, Serbia and the Romanian principalities remained Orthodox Christian in the majority, despite Ottoman rule. So what was so unique about Albania to enable this demographic shift? Or was it perhaps just happenstance?

I'm currently reading about the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, and what's being presented is a united Scotland against England. I am curious if there were any Scots fighting for the English cause

I’ve been told that a group of commandos were successfully landed at some point and that the unit was comprised mostly or entirely of former Boy Scouts chosen for their pathfinding skills, but that’s all the info I have.

Most sources I’ve seen have said hitler was enthusiastic about Pearl Harbor and I remember someone telling me he was mad that they didn’t really destroy anything (might be false I dunno).

This may have been posted here before but I'm not entirely sure, if it has, sorry.

I've been told by numerous people that Soviet soldiers during WW2 would either carry a gun or bullets since they didn't have enough weapons. When one soldier died, the living soldier got the others equipment. People have both told me this is true and false and I was hoping someone could tell me whether or not this actually happened or if it's not true.

I'm currently reading the Iliad, and I've noticed that Homer often describes how spears, arrows, and swords puncture people's armor. Armor is sometimes effective -- I think that, at one point, Hector's helmet deflects an arrow -- but armor fails more often than it works. The only consistent protection characters have in the Iliad is a belt buckle, I think.

As far as I understand, this sort of penetration wasn't really possible with arms and armor either of the Late Bronze Age or the Archaic Age. A common paraphrase I've seen is "people wore armor because it worked." My questions:

1. Is my assessment about armor reliability correct?
2. If my assessment is correct, did the ancients ever comment on this unrealistic aspect, or were they willing to treat it as something that happened in the past?

I'm researching english ports and dock towns that would have existed around the time of the legends of King Arthur, which is 5th-6th century era. I intend to design one for a game server. any information, obscure facts, illustrations, customs, design considerations, etc that you have would be welcome and extremely helpful! I'm still researching this myself too, and I'm looking forward to discussing it!

'Revisionist' is a word often used as a pejorative. But are there revisionist works of history (books, studies) that single-handedly changed the consensus on a topic in a dramatic manner?

My grandfather said that if kids took lobster to school in his day, people would make fun of them for being poor. Nowadays, if you did that you'd be the fanciest person ever.

I am about to build scale model of a m36 for a battle of the bulge themed group build and I wondered if this camo pattern was used during this period as it would make the vehicle more interesting than the single normal olive drab paint

Surely, most of them likely weren't aware of the existence of nuclear weapons and had little nuclear physics knowledge, so what did they think they were bombed with? Some type of a giant incendiary+high explosive combined bomb (given that it produced both a blast wave and a firestorm), some kind of an explosive chemical weapon (considering the radiation sickened people like poison) or what? What did the Japanese government tell them and when did they learn just what hit them?

If you know any please let me know, I want to know more about the movement and Mao's relation to it. Primary or secondary source, it does not matter. Thank you so much.

[deleted]

I am trying to build a book corner for a fifth grade class. I loved the American Girl and the Dear America books, and they definitely made me want to be an historian. I was also thinking of Number the Stars. But my list is pretty non diverse, and I wanted to crowdsource.

I realize the subject matter of this question is a bit sensitive and I ask it with the upmost respect. If my understanding is correct the powers of Europe were at their heights during the 18th and 19th centuries while the once formidable Ottoman empire had begun to stagnate. If this is true why was there no effort to take the holy land, not including the Sykes-Picot agreement after WWI?

Like, wouldn't bombing the boonies or mountains or a small island still send the required fear effect to the Japanese government without as much civilian casualties?

According to wikipedia the US had monopoly of nuclear weapons at the beginning of the cold war. From 1947 to late August 1948, when the soviets achieved their first ever nuclear weapon"First Lightning" to the world.

I don't really grasp why the US didn't use their advantage really early in this conflict, forcing reddition on the URSS. Surely, some thought that they should: "drop a few bombs to terrorize the ennemy"? It feels to me that the US could have cut short this war.

Granted a lot of parameters could be taken into account. Such as the Marshall plan was probably the first objectif, ethics clashes on dropping nuclear bombs, fear of another war... Or maybe I'm just missing something like the actual start of this war begin with the escalation in 1953, and before that it was more of a discontent between the two parties.

PS: Sorry for any grammatical/Lexical mistakes in my text.

Also, what is the recommend reading to learn more about Condor, and in general, Latin American politics of the Cold War?

So basically, I'm in a college hisory class right now, and I'm having trouble piecing together all the details I hear thrown around about the rise of Rome as a Republic and ultimately its transition into an Empire. I get that Ceaser played a large role in the decline of the Reublic, essentially becoming Rome's dictator, but it seems he was more of the final straw rather than the main cause. What strengths of the Republic that allowed it to last so long disappeared as it transitioned to an empire? Like I said, I've heard tons of theories as to why the Republic failed, like latifunium, expansion (although I'm hazy on specifics here), etc., but I'm having a hard time seeing how they all relate to each other and caused Rome to transition from a Republic to an empire.