This is one of those historical factoids that I see pop up from time to time, so I don't know if he actually believed this. It seems so strange that he would though, and I would have thought that it would be a much bigger deal if Stalin actually did believe Hitler was alive.

Why was plate armor invented? I've read two separate texts on to why, one of them said it was designed to better protect against bladed weapons like spears and axes, which led to the creation of anti-armor weapons like maces, and the other said that plate armor was to protect against musket fire, in other words, did plate armor come before or after black powder weapons?

It had already completed its top secret mission and had stopped in Guam after Tinian to exchange some crew. Why was the decision made to have it go alone from Guam to Leyte without any escort ships? If it had had an escort accompanying it, they could've aided in rescuing much of the USS Indianapolis crew after the sinking, especially since about 50% of the USS Indianapolis' crew died only after being set adrift due to a number of factors like exposure, dehydration, starvation, and shark attacks. Wasn't it standard procedure in the navy by this point in the war to not let capital ships travel on their own?

Was this some sort of stereotype, or was it merely psychological?

I’m watching Beauty and the Beast and I was wondering if there was actually some sort of repulsion against reading? Or was that a reflection of education being limited to the upper class or something of the like?

Hi there! After reading the basic guidelines I hope my question falls in line with this subreddit. I am doing research for a book I am writing and I had been gathering potential sources and going through some of them. I had compiled two books on King George III for my list. The titles are very similar but slightly different and are attributed separately to different authors. However when I actually went and looked through the content the books are identical. They are formatted differently but other than that the words are the exact same. I'm not sure which is authentic or if they both are? How do I determine this. These books both would have came out in the early 1800s. I'll list the information of both books below. Thanks so much in advance to anyone who can give me some advice! :)

Book 1: "The Public And Private Life Of His Late Excellent And Most Gracious Majesty, George The Third, Embracing Its Most Memorable Incidents As They Were Displayed In The Important Relation Of Son, Husband, Father, Friend, And Sovereign, The Whole Collected From The Most Authentic Sources, And Containing A Historical Memoir Of The House Of Brunswick" By Robert Huish, Esq.

Book 2: "The Public and Domestic Life of His late Most Gracious Majesty George the Third, comprising the most eventful and important period in the annals of British history ; v. 2" By Edward Holt, Esq.

According to the Royal Collection Trust website Holt's book came out in 1820 a year prior to Huish's in 1821.

Is there any sign that this was ever a concern for military planners? It kinda seems like "armchair expertise" from an 80s gun magazine. Doesn't any casualty in represent the tactical loss of a fighting unit? I have a hard time imagining military research and procurement people cared that much about making rifles less lethal.

Even in the later years of the war when the Allies mostly had naval and aerial supremacy, I'm still left wondering how it wasn't deemed too big of a risk for someone like Churchill to leave the UK. How did they plan the trips to avoid Germans attacking them, either intentionally or accidentally, and did the Germans ever try to intercept the leaders as they moved around?

I just watched the trailer for the new movie about Oppenheimer. At the end they use the phrase “the man who moved the world.” Is Robert Oppenheimer solely responsible for the creation of the atomic bomb? I know he had a team of scientists with him. How important was he to the project? Could the bomb been created by another scientist of the time?

It is my understanding that prior to the phalanx most battle was sort of a collision of two sides having many individual battles inside of the large battle and it was really the phalanx that would create a more modern interpretation of infantry tactics. So how was Rome able to overcome this seemingly perfect tactical creation?

Preface: I am very aware of what is bad about colonization. It was and is a source of an ocean of unnecessary suffering. I am also in no way comparing local tribal power struggles with the genocide of Native Americans. I know that lots of folks out there, acting in bad faith, will ask a question like this as a way to justify colonialization, to lead to another question that tries to justify it, or just to get up to some hateful shenanigans. I am asking purely for informational purposes, and I am asking historians, specifically. I’m not here to grind any axe. The way groups with less power were/are treated was, and is, horrific- at all levels small and large. I am squarely on the side of the underdog - so to speak.

Now that you’re thinking that “thou protesters too much”- which is totally understandable, here is the question:

How fine a line is there between “colonization” and “local power struggle between groups”? There are many many examples that mainstream historians would clearly categorize as one or the other, but are there some conflicts with elements of both? Can one turn into the other and vice versa? I guess my reading is that ancient history was pretty much nothing but “we are conquering you, deal with it” see Alexander the Great, Roman Empire etc, with somewhat less as history moved forward. I know history is very complex, but is this one of the overall themes of history, away from a “might makes right” mentality? Thanks.

I'm presuming but not certain antisemitism was rampant in the rest of the world.

Because of no action from the Japanese, the Soviets were able to reallocate troops from the eastern front to the west to fight with the German armies, now considering that they were allies with Germany, why didn't they attack the Russians to help Germany with the operation?

Specifically, I'm interested in the cultural differences between civilizations meeting each other for the first time and the reactions of both sides to these events. It seems like there were many normalized concepts in Western Culture that the Spanish/Europeans saw as blasphemous and wrong, but I can't find anything on how the natives responded to this. The vast majority of non-abrahamic religious texts are alleged to have been burned and destroyed by the invaders upon discovery, and it doesn't seem far fetched to assume other parts of that world are lost to time for the same reason. The conquerers also seemed to view gender-variance in tribes (i.e. anything except the patriarchal and heterosexual two-role binary system) as similarly blasphemous and strange, though it has been documented that this part of the culture (like most parts) developed with varying results under various isolated tribes, until the monoculture was irreversibly enforced by the Eastern peoples.

While searching through Wikipedia (I'm still early in learning good research techniques) I realized that a not insignificant amount of the citations point to information written by the colonizers themselves about their experiences in the 1490s-1500s meeting these people and living among them long enough to learn their ways. The vast majority of historical books available now are written by archaeologists and researchers about things that happened thousands of years ago, and I would be interested to see a less removed perspective on this subject.

I'm specifically trying to research reactions to "transgender" cultures like the North American Nádleehi and Polynesian Mahu peoples, which seemed to be almost invariably suppressed and intolerated by people from the eastern continents. However, just any help at all with researching ancient cultures from a more direct and less futurist gaze would be of interest to me. I am also trying to learn about ancient religions and gods, and what the western natives had/have to say about primordialism and the origin of humanity, as contrasted with what seems to be a completely different story believed and enforced by the Easterners. Were there willing religious converts on both sides, and if so then how were they accepted? Are there any accounts of European missionaries abandoning their customs to practice New World methods?

I mean, did anyone really think so or is it just a comic statement?

When we were taught about the industrial revolution in highschool, they told is it was comparatively better conditions in the factories.

Lately, going down the rabbithole of studying history as well as the internet allows, I've become somewhat skeptical of that claim.

Let's consider the 1820s, this is where my head is at. Beginning of the industrial revolution kicking off in Britain.

People were overworked, long hours every day to make pennies - just enough to eat. The women were given less, and if something went wrong you might not be paid at all. There were no workers rights or laws and people were fighting for them at that time. It was crowded, and people were surrounded at all times by animal and human feces. That filled the streets. You were constantly scammed or robbed everywhere you looked. Children would also work at the factory, only they were paid much much less and were beaten if they made a mistake or were late.

Now let's look at a farm, you would work the land, and sure some days would be long, but there were also days were little to nothing needed to be done. Perhaps the crops were growing, no more needed to be planted and none were ready to be harvested, so what do you do? Milk the cow, collect the eggs, feed everything. Easy stuff. If you needed something you traded what produce you had. Sure it was hard work, but not always, and at least you were in the fresh air of the country too, and not in crowded, feces filled cities.

Of course farm work isn't easy, but how was long hours every day for just enough to eat better in any way? Doesn't sound like you'd have much more food than a farmer.

I guess if we're considering later on, like maybe the 1880s for example, I would totally believe factory work was preferred to farming, because workers had more rights and machines were better than before. But early on I can't imagine that. So why were so many people moving into cities to work in factories?

I run a rabbit rescue. It is interesting to me that New Zealand white rabbits have a history as being taken on ships as a renewable food source. Dutch bunnies were desirable because you could get a fur collar and cuffs in different colors out of one rabbit. I would be interested in any historical rabbit trivia anyone has. Thanks fellow redditors!

First of all, I am sorry if this question does not belong to this sub. I don't know where else to post this. Also, don't take the word patent as literal, if I am using it wrong. I am using it just as a reference (?).

All right, so Nuclear bomb was developed in the US. And then how did the entire world get it? Did the US sell the NUCLEAR bombs? The most DANGEROUS bombs, sold? If not, then how did other countries get the "formula" of the nuclear bombs?? If they stole it, then why didn't US do anything?

Also, the Germans were developing the weapons too during the WW2, right? But how? Like, Einstein sent the formulae to US military but not Germans (right?)? Or were there other scientists as smart who developed/came up with the formulae?

For example, did poor native Roman plebeians have citizenship, or just the patricians?

How would someone like a Saul of Tarsus, presumably an educated bureaucratic figure from an outlying province obtain citizenship?

If pressed, in a province far from home, how would someone prove their citizenship to ensure they were afforded the rights of such?

And what we’re those rights? What did the status actually do for you?

I'm curious about this. What was the manner of speech actually like among the aristocratic members of high society in London during the Regency Era?

Did these people speak like...

1. Characters from Jane Austen's Novels: The characters here speak in a way that is quite difficult for a modern english speaker to pick up. I myself am a native English speaker and I had trouble reading Austen's works at first because of how the characters spoke. The characters tend to speak in long sentences, drone on about irrelevant stuff, use fancy words, and never get to the point quickly. The word structure and sentence structure can be very hard to follow for someone who isn't used to Austen's style of writing. I'm not sure if people actually spoke like this during the Regency Period or if it's just how Jane Austen's style of writing was.
2. Characters from Fictional Historical Romance Novels set during the Regency Era (ex: Bridgerton): I'm an avid reader of historical romance novels. The characters in these stories speak elegantly and use very formal words. However, the word and sentence structure is basically identical to the way we speak English today. They speak naturally and it's not as if they're reciting a sonnet or giving a speech like the characters in Jane Austen's novels. Native English speakers should have no trouble in understanding these characters. They speak in the same manner as most people do today but they tend to do it in a more formal and polite way.

How did people from high society actually talk like during the Regency Era? Was the manner of their speech closer to that of the characters in Jane Austen's works or the characters in Historical Romance Novels being read today?

Another way to ask this question would be to ask how polygamist marriage and concubinage worked in ancient Israelite nobility around the time of the writing of the Books of Kings. Obviously Solomon himself is a legendary figure and the historicity of all these wives should be taken with a grain of salt, but the fact remains that the writers assigned some special significance to having a lot of concubines in addition to all the wives. However, in other cultures where a ruler could have hundreds of wives the distinction between "wife" and "concubine" isn't so distinct.

So I suppose the true question is-

1. Was such extravagant polygamy an accepted practice among ancient Israelite rulers? (Obviously

2. Why distinguish wives from concubines when there are already hundreds of wives?

The taking of foreign wives is seen as a flaw of Solomon's, so is the taking of so many wives and the taking of concubines meant to be seen as a flaw too?