I was hearing in China History Podcast that Chang Kai-shek planned to fight on the mainland again after reforming his exile government. Why did he never carry out his plan and why is it that the Nationalists only occupy Taiwan and outlying islands to this day?

I know this is pretty far fetched considering Hitler’s personality and megalomania, but he wasn’t stupid, and his mistakes can clearly be seen. There are some blunders that simply can’t be blamed on anyone else.

I’m working on a drawing of Boudica and can’t find all the info I’d like for it.

So:

Did Celtic women have body hair circa 60 CE?

Did they still go into battle naked and painted blue circa 60 CE?

And were they using round or oval shields then?

I actually studied at uni in the early 2000s but I can’t find a concrete timeline for this stuff.

Thanks in advance!

I'm creating a presentation on what my Professor calls the "Equal Rights Act of 1863", which is the Emancipation Proclamation. The project's requirements are to identify the founding landmark laws, the effect this act has on employers, employees, and taxpayers today, along with liberal and conservative viewpoints that people have about those effects today.

Through days of research, I still have come up short as to why the Emancipation Proclamation itself has any specific relevance to equal opportunity employment today, especially since following the timeline of all the Reconstruction Era decisions like Dred Scott, Brown v. Board, Amendment XIII, the CRA of 1866 and 1875, and then plessy v. ferguson. Specifically, it seems like the CRA of 1964 has more to do with equal opportunity employment than the Emancipation Proclamation and would be more worth focusing on than the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation.

The problem is that there are 5 groups presenting, and it looks like one group's subject is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already, so presenting that subject would mean taking away from their presentation, and may take away points from our presentation because we should be focusing on the "Equal Rights Act of 1863". I obviously don't want anyone doing the legwork for me in terms of research and facts, but any pointers in the right direction to steer me toward anything I can look into and develop for the presentation will help me a bunch. Thanks in advance, history buffs!

I am referring to the stereotypical black and pointy witch hat, or the pointy wizard hat (decorated with stars and crescent moons). Are these hats solely based in fiction, or do they come from an actual type of hat worn by people at one time?

[deleted]

Been wondering about this since it seems really risky for your leader to fight on the front lines does anyone know more about this?

I'm working on a novel set in a fantasy world, but I'd like to base my technology levels on a real world time period. Otherwise, I risk saying something hasn't been invented yet, but something that depends on the leanings from that technology does exists.

I know I want a time period that's industrial, but I don't want the average person to have computers or cell phones. Everything I know about these time periods is based on TV shows, like M*A*S*H* and Hogan's Heroes. Great shows, but not super heavy on the historical accuracy. I'm also not interested in a military perspective.

What kind of technology would an average person in the 1960s have that a person in the 1940s would not have and what would a person in the 1940s have that the person in the 1920s wouldn't?

Thank you for your help!

Hi Historians, first time poster here, long time reader and fellow historian by currently earning degree. I've got a question and I want to see if you can answer it.

My great grandfather was an American doughboy in WW1. I've done the research on him and he was a member of the QMC MTC repair division. He was drafted(?) In December of 1917 and served till July of 1919. His company was the 327th, and while it was not mentioned in my research, some of his locations during the war must have been Tours, Champagne, and maybe the Aisne-Marne region. He never really talked about the war according to my Dad, and I sadly never got to meet the man because he passed away in December of 1986 at 93. The only remnants of him left are his doughboy helmet and a 1917 Stahlhelm he brought back. What I would like to know is:

How do you think he would have been able to get the helmet, especially being a part of a repair division?

And

Where can I find information on the 327th's campaign during the war?

Any help is appreciated. I never knew this man, but I have a high degree of respect for him and any way of finding out what he was doing at this time of his life would mean the world to me. Thank you in advance.

I once remember my neighbor telling me a story of when her 33 year old husband returned from Vietnam shortly after the Tet Offensive in the spring of 1968 and she bought him the Revolver album as a gift. Her husband played the record for about 5 minutes before he went outside and threw it in the trash saying "goddamn hippies" and then locking himself in his room for the rest of the day. Was this a generational gap between her husband and the younger folk of their generation or were the Beatles extremely unpopular around this time?

Last night I was watching Band of Brothers and in episode 9, Why We Fight, Cpt Nixon said that Hitler ordered the Waffen-SS to retreat into the Alps and to start a guerilla war. Why didn't this happen? Weren't the Waffen-SS a pretty radical group that at least a small portion of them would've followed Hitler's orders even after he had committed suicide? It seems like the Alps would've been an ideal place to start a guerilla war and would've been hard for allied forces to root out.

[deleted]

Over the years, I have heard about new Qing history, the (west coast?) school of thought which appeared in the 1990s and reinterpretated parts of the history of qing China by reviewing archives redacted in Manchu, which had been previously overlooked, including by Chinese historians. However that was already a while ago. It has deep implications over the wide-sweeping and often-misused concept of sinicization, recent developments in Chinese politics (the government narrative as of recently eschewing references to a Chinese multiculturalism) and what it means to be Han (汉).

Is there still a debate on sinicization in relation to the new qing history? What are the conflicting points of view? Is there such a thing as sinicization or is that simply a consequence of nation building and orientalism? Do the progresses of genetic history (mitochondrial DNA etc) contribute to this debate?

Is there any good book, accessible to the layman, to recommend on that topic? And more generally, on the topic of the 'colonization of China', including the conquest of Yunnan, 闯广东, etc.

Admittedly this is a very broad topic..

Thanks a lot

So every old map has Tartaria depicted with borders and so on, just like any other country and every old history book or dictionary or encyclopedia describes it as a country. Why do historians call it a geograpical region? What's their evidence for this claim?

[deleted]

I know that Old World diseases were a huge reason so many indigenous Americans died, but were there any New World diseases that had a similar effect on the Spanish, English, etc. when they arrived?

I’m just interested in the progression of black rights in Britain compared to the US

So I'm 3/4s of the way through binging Mike Duncan's History of Rome podcast and I've noticed a trend I have a hard time understanding. It's often explained that the eastern half of the Roman Empire was much richer than the western half, and that the gap only grew throughout the empire's history. Yet it seems that every civil war was won by the contender from the west. Starting with Octavian defeating Antony, then numerous times in the Crisis of the Third Century (including Aurelian defeating Zenobia), then Licinius beating Maximinus Daia, Constantine beating Licinius and Julian the Apostate beating Constantius II. Maybe the balance shifts after this (I haven't gotten further in the podcast) but it seems strange to me that the side with seemingly more resources always loses. Can this all be chalked up to the abilities of the individual commanders involved, or is there some greater explanation here? Were the Rhine and Danube legions simply that much better than their eastern counterparts?

EDIT: Yes, Vespasian won, but that was after three other western contenders had already duked it out, and Vitellian's guys didn't put up that much of a fight either.