It’s my understanding that part of the reason of popularity of leather jackets amongst greaser/rocker subcultures in the UK and US was not only the practical applications/nature of work but that it was a cheap and accessible form of clothing for the working class.

Now real leather is fairly pricy, almost more a luxury item in my eyes- what prompted this change?

Hi, I’m looking for a map where you can see what house owned which land in history. I’m interested in Austrian empire, especially looking for a regions owned by house of Liechtenstein.

1 Koku is the rice needed to feed one person for an year. So is it saying that the fief the Daimyo owns produces that many rice? Or maybe just the rice collected as tax? Or is it just a rough estimate of their overall wealth (for some reason given in rice)?

Were they any democracy movements ?

It almost seems like this part of history never happened.

You have some occasional pop-ups like the birth of Islam, Charlemagne and the Viking raids, but other than that these 500+ years seem either utterly uneventful or completely forgotten.

What interesting shit went down in this historical blip?

Or another (perhaps even more interesting question) why was it "forgotten"?

(And yes, awaiting smartasses, I know that the Roman Empire didn't technically fall until 1453)

I had recently seen an FB post of a tweet that suggested the main reason for the war was to get King George off Colonist backs so they could expand farther and quicker. Is this true?

When my parents grew up (1940s and 1950), they and all of their friends played bridge and they continued to play their entire lives. Mainly party or rubber bridge, and not competitively necessarily. My parents taught all of us (me and my siblings) how to play. But virtually nobody my age (50s and 60s) knows how to play. But most know how to play Spades or Hearts. What changed in that time period that resulted in that particular card game not being common place anymore?

Henry VIII is notorious for his tyrannical acts and many of those acts were directed against members of the nobility. Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, had two of his nieces and his son executed and was almost killed by Henry too. Thomas Boleyn, the Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond, had his son and his daughter executed at the same time and his grandaughter disinherited. Edward Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, was executed by Henry in 1521 and his family stripped of their lands and titles. The Marquess of Exeter, Henry Courtenay, was also executed by the King as were the Countess of Salisbury and Baron Montagu, both members of the de La Pole family. The Nevilles of Abergavenny had their lord, George Neville arrested for a year and his brother, Edward Neville, executed in a seperate incident. Even a close ally like the Earl of Essex, Richard Cromwell, found himself beheaded. That is without mentioning Henry's titanic break with Rome which doubtless made him many powerful enemies among the nobility.

Given all this, why was there no noble rebellion against Henry VIII? Why is there such a difference between Henry VIII's reign and the reigns of practically every other medieval English monarch? Other monarchs (including Henry VII and Elizabeth I) faced several noble rebellions and often for far less than what Henry VIII did.

I have been reading a lot about the allied withdrawal from the European mainland following the German conquests of France & the Low Countries during World War Two. I have read about, for example, the diversion of 229 Curtiss P-36 Hawk fighters to Britain that were initially intended for use by the Armee De L'Air, most of which were put to use in the India-Burma Theatre by a few RAF squadrons there (despite the British initially evaluating & opting not to procure the Hawk), the Royal Indian Air Force & the South African Air Force.

This made me wonder at how many different aircraft types that weren't in British service managed to find their way into British hands from occupied allied nations. I am sure that the P-36 Hawk is not the sole exception & that surely there must have been many more types that made their way across the channel to the United Kingdom VIA retreating allied airmen from place such as Holland, Belgium, France, Norway, etc.

Additionally, I was curious as to whether any of these types not initially operated by the RAF found roles - slight or significant - within the RAF or throughout the British Empire in other theatres of war.

Thank you!

I saw something recently that said Hitler had assured his generals that war would not come until 1945, so the Germany army would have more time to build up it's arsonal. Invading Poland meant that the Germans had to fight before rearmament was complete.

My question is why did Hitler feel the need to invade Poland in 1939? Was there something that was rushing him along, or some kind of pressure to begin WWII early? Because he must have known that finally invading Poland would have resulted in the Allies declaring war on him, right?

The Cyrillic alphabet has letters that are identical to latin letters in appearance, but not in the sounds they expect people to produce.

Examples:

• P as in Papa in english is an R sound as in Radio in Russian.
• C can be many things like Candle, Charlie, or Cyrillic but in Russian its just the S sound like Soup (Cyp) in fact, in Russian they have a different letter just for the Ch sound, and a different letter for the K sound (literally: K)
• Y is like Yankee in English but more like a U sound in Russian like Uniform or an uh like Umbrella
• E has many pronunciations in english like Echo, English, Eek, etc, but in Russian its a "ye" sound like Yes
• R in english sounds like Radio, but in Russian its flipped and sounds like "ya" like Yani and is also a vowel
• N in english sounds like November, but in Russian is flipped and is an EE sound like Eek and is also a vowel

Why did the Monks who created the Cyrillic Alphabet reuse Latin characters and give them sometimes totally different sounds than they traditionally take on?

Why did the rotate some letters that existed and give them dramatically different meanings?

I ask this because I'm writing a character backstory for D&D, and it involves a character being abandoned with their blacksmith father shortly after birth, and I'm trying to figure out how a peasant or commoner in Medieval/Renaissance Europe would feed a still milk-dependant infant without access to a wetnurse or someone else who could breastfeed them. Would they just use animal milk like that of cows?

Hello everyone,

I would have a rather technical question, I hope my post doesnt harm the rules. So I'm working on a project about 17th century journalism and a few "gazettes" of the time in Europe, and I would like to create some maps that show and represent some quantitative datas what I've obtained from my sources. Like highlighting the central places (cities) where the informations and news came from, or makes an assessment of this geographic location of information by country.

Do you know some applications/programs for this kind of work? Also I would need basic 17th century maps which show the country borders back then, and not an actual european map.

Thanks in advance for your help!

This question was inspired by an earlier post about the movie The Green Knight, the director of which has explicitly stated is about the triumph of wild pagan nature over the dreary orderliness of Christian civilization.

The linking of paganism to environmentalism has always struck me as modern revisionism especially since nature for ancient people’s was a far more frightening force than we understand it today.

I know that reconstructing original pagan thought is pretty difficult, which feels like a answer in and of itself, hence my second question about how and when this connection developed.

Think Bladerunner or Neo-Noir dystopians they all have a huge Japanese influence to it.

Where does this imagery come from?

I understand there would probably be a gap of a few years between the end of the war and the start of any big migrations of former slaves. Reconstruction did offer the prospect of things getting better after all. But once Reconstruction ended in the late 1870's I'm curious why the African-Americans endured Jim Crow for 30+ years before you see the Great Migration get underway.

This is how I (and most other people) grew up understanding the Yugoslav Wars, but I've seen certain things that challenged this narrative in recent years. The main challenges I've seen are:

1. Having multiple ethnicities did not inevitably doom Yugoslavia to failure. After all, there are several examples of successful (to varying degrees) multinational states both historically and today, as well as ethnically homogenous states that have resulted in failure.
2. While Tito's regime was clearly authoritarian, ethnic divisions were not a significant factor in his efforts to hold onto power. Additionally, nearly a decade passed between Tito's death and the country fracturing.
3. Aside from Slovenia, most "average Joe" Yugoslavians were in favor of the country remaining together even as violence began to escalate. (Various opinion polls are often referred to for this one, but I've never seen any specific polls actually cited.)
4. The international community favored Yugoslavia's integrity.
5. Perhaps most importantly, the ethnic tensions became too hostile to overcome mostly because of the actions of a few nationalist ideologues, mostly Serbs who wanted to enforce Serb dominance over the whole of the country.

How well do each of these 5 points hold up, and, in general, what is the current historiographical consensus on how Yugoslavia collapsed and whether it was truly "inevitable"?

I know this was a long one, so many thanks for reading through!

I would have assumed that the crossbow was much more deadly. When you think about it, its like a primitive gun. It's as simple as point and shoot, whereas archery takes much talent to be decent at. Why were the English longbow men so dangerous and not, for example, a French crossbow?