Tacoma had an early advantage with the terminus of the railroad. So why did Seattle’s importance/population explode over the course of the early 20th century while Tacoma took a backseat?

I am an anthropologist looking to do research in Caracas Venezuela and am having difficulties finding good historical analysis on Venezuela. Am fluent in Spanish and English.

The book seems to offer fascinating new insights and have good primary sourcing. Yet I haven’t been able to find any coverage of it in the mainstream press or on this forum. Is something wrong with it or is it being sidelined for not sticking with the revisionist line popular amongst most of the “intelligentsia” class of western society (I apologize if I imply these people are lying or in on some sort of conspiracy but I don’t know what else to call the beliefs and way of thinking that occurs amongst left of center historians and journalists.)

World war 1-2.

Like the question asks, was there a debate when renaming Leningrad? Why was St. Petersburg chosen over Petrograd?

[deleted]

I added the phrase "totally and completely" at the end to emphasize that I'm looking for a movement which accomplished none of its major goals and, preferably, would not see widespread support if it resurfaced today. It doesn't necessarily need to have had some spectacular implosion in order to qualify.

I often see the assertion during Civil Rights debates where Side A will accuse Side B of being on the wrong side of history. Almost always, this is the pro-whatevers saying this to the anti-whatever, and for the most part my knowledge of US history supports that trend. Once a movement becomes widespread and well known, it seems to inevitably effect lasting change. We still have racism and sexism and homophobia, certainly, but it looks to me like we're always moving in the "right" (I accept this is technically a matter of opinion) direction, with civil liberties ultimately being expanded.

Then I was thinking about the anti-vaxx movement (I know this violates the 20-year rule, and don't want to ask questions about it specifically, but I only have this contemporary example to help explain my point). Arguably, this is a civil rights issue relating to religious freedom and parental sovereignty which has gotten massive amounts of support and media coverage and spread far beyond just the US. Whether or not they will be ultimately successful only time will tell, but the current trajectory looks grim for them and it made me very curious if there have been movements that had a similar amount of momentum behind them but eventually collapsed.

Thank you in advance!

How bards were seen during in let's say England during the 1200-1600 by the common folks? Were they idolizing them in a similar way to how we idolize modern musicians?

[deleted]

I understand that homosexuality was still illegal in 1920s England. My question is: if a man decided to come out (to use the modern term) to a family member or friend what consequences could he face both legally and socially?

1. Where would the 20th armored infantry battalion of the 10th armored division have been (more or less) on November 30 1944?

2. How would they have gotten there?

and

3. What would their objective have been?

​

I've done my best to try and trace this, but am having a hard time and thought someone here might be able to help. I seem to find fairly differing information, some saying they would have been at the battle of Metz, others somewhere between Apach, France and Luxembourg. A family friend was killed that day, and I'd like to know how that might have happened, as part of my own personal attempt at honoring his memory.

​

I apologize if this is in the wrong sub! This is the most relevant one I could find for such an ask. Thank you anyone who might be able to help!

In particular I am thinking about the various Viking tribes that had a tradition of raiding and fighting. They profited a lot from looting Christian kingdoms. Why embrace a religion that denounces past success? What were the advantages of becoming Catholic for a King?

Friend and I went shooting today and we got around to wondering about the lack of shotguns in linear warfare.

So I suppose my question is:

Where were the shotguns in the era of linear warfare? Military leaders must have seen the effectiveness of canister shot from their cannons and thought "why not shrink this down so every man can do something similar" or just give soldiers smaller bullets so they can shove 3 in their muskets instead of 1? Is the issue with metal technology?

To my understanding it is fairly well accepted that Vikings discovered and established settlements in North America well before Columbus' expedition. Is there any evidence that their knowledge of this landmass spread significantly throughout Scandinavia and Europe at large between the 11th and 15th centuries?

I’m especially interested in learning about how it’s evolved in American since the 1900s. Back then I assume most people made their clothes and kept them for a long time, shared them, so on. And then in the 1950s, I assume we started buying clothes from catalogues and department stores?

What do we know about the size of his army? Are there any figures about number of infantry and cavalry? How similar would his Roman rebels have been to Stilicho's Imperial Romans? How did it compare to Alaric's Visigoth army? What about Constantine Spanish and Frankish mercenaries?

Side question: since Constantine's army was largely made up of rebel Romans from Britain, how did they distinguish themselves from the Imperial Romans? Wouldn't they have been wearing the same sort of uniform? Are there any symbols, colours or banners he associated himself with like Constantine the Great had done?

Whenever i see old videos of certain events (send offs in WW1, liberation of cities in WW2, sports events...), i notice that people wave in a strange way, up and down, the way no one does today.

Is it possible to pinpoint approximate time when the gesture changed?

Title, I am curious about the Cathoilc Popes stance on war, what happened when two nations that took the Pope as their religious head fought each other ? Would the Pope try to establish peace ? Condemn one side and not the other ? And if he did, did his condemnation have any value ? Did his word change the outcome of a war ? I guess this could all be jointed into one question, how much power did the Catholic Pope have during war time ?