Why did the vice president switch from being the second place finisher in the US presidential election to a ticket with the president? If you read the 12th Amendment it would seem like they intended to have it as it's own election? Was this change a major contributor toward the present day two party system?

"No taxation without representation" is the rallying cry of the American Revolution that centuries of schoolchildren have learned. But it seems like all the protests were over the fact that Parliament was trying to tax the colonists, not over the fact that the colonists had no representation. Before the Stamp Act of 1765, did it occur to any colonists to be bothered about their lack of representation back in Britain? Or were their colonial legislatures enough for them? And, rather than demanding the repeal of various acts of taxation, did any prominent colonists try to push to gain representation in Parliament instead? Was that ever even a possibility?

The more I read up on Churchill, the more he seems to just be one long line of luck and failure with little to know actual skill to his career. From the failures of the Gallipoli Campaign, to his mismanagement of India, to his failure at Dunkirk and the small hot-cold war of the Blitz, and the incidents with pollution and state affairs post-war, he seems to have more often talked his way out of responsibility than actually doing much of anything.

​

What am I missing? Why is Churchill remembered as a great leader? Is it just that he was the guy who happened to be in the hot seat when victory finally came, so he took what credit he could and folks just remembered that final happening? I cannot grasp on what grounds Churchill is looked up towards.

This question came up regarding some reading about the US 26th Cavalry Regiment in the Philippines during WWII, but the question extends to any and all cavalry troops, whether they are medieval knights or 19th century hussars or whether they ride horses, elephants, camels, or whatever.

Did cavalry-men become emotionally attached to their mounts, sort of how one would become attached to a family pet? Would these men give names to their mounts and form bonds with them? If someone had their horse shot out from underneath them, or were forced to butcher their own mounts for food (like the 26th Cavalry) would that effect them emotionally, or would it be no different to a modern soldier loosing a Humvee for example?

I've never heard or read about any examples of this, but it does seem like something that would be easily glossed over or overlooked if it did occur.

Logically, your biggest and most powerful “ally” (Germany) surrendered. Why wait for the US to drop two atomic bombs? Was it the belief in the emperor’s divine crusade or all out fear of Americans invading the homeland?

I've seen a video of a 'field repair kit' for Americans which consisted of 3 plaster strips for small tears, but other than that I've had trouble finding anything else on the topic. Did other nations distribute similar kits? Could they do anything if a lens broke?

Some years ago, I (an American) got Chinese takeout with an Australian friend, while living in South America. We both got exactly what we were expecting when we ordered orange chicken, despite being from two different countries and being in a distinct third country.

"Chinese" takeout is fairly uniform throughout the world, and all of it distinct from actual Chinese food. Why is this?

I have been traveling throughout a lot of Turkey recently and went to a lot of museums. Some were really cool (Check out the Roman statue museum in Antalya if you can) but I wondered how a historian could possibly use the relics in museums to help their research. Mentioning the previous examples, are there any fields that would study museum statues in order to gleam something about a time period? Would there ever be a time that a historian would ever study a specific statue in a museum? This is just an example and I would love to know about any type of museum that a historian might use.

Sorry if this is obvious to a historian and if this goes against the rules I will make sure to delete this post. Thank you very much!

I understand that Britain did not have a submarine based nuclear deterrent till 1998, but I know that we have had an active submarine service for donkeys years. What were the role of submarines during the Cold War?

Long story short I found a blank paper application to join the Knights of The KKK in a house I was junking in Milwaukee, WI. How it ended up here I am not sure. The perforated slip that would be filled out and sent in is still attached and blank. The mailing address lists Shelby, NC.

My question is when do you think this document would have been sent out in relation to activities of the KKK in that area?

Also, I am not really wanting to keep it. I’m open to suggestions about what would be a place to transfer ownership of this to either a collector or a museum.

Thanks in advance!

In pictures, soldiers normally seen to have helmets, though helmets that only cover the top of their head, not the sides. Why not? They also don't seem to wear any kind of body armour, bullet-proof vests, etc. Was that because it wasn't available? Or too impractical?
Or did they wear more armour, that just isn't obvious in pictures? Did certain kinds of units wear more armour?

What were the differences between national C2 systems and performances?

We all have been told that Germans were advanced. Everyone tells me that "Germans were better", "Germans were much faster", "It gave advantage to Germans". All sources of information also leave it on the same level. None seems to be able to give facts or numbers, not even academic guess. Don't understand me wrong, Germans definitely had an advantage but... How big was the advantage? Proofs? Studies? Statistics? Academic guess?

I understand that experience, nation, year, unit, formation, equipment had much to do with this. The list probably has more items. The question is vague and it is more like an interesting subject to have a chat.

I have not been able to find resources or don't know right keywords to search. It can be that the subject is well documented. In that case, if there are literature you know, videos, webpages, documents, resources of any kind, I would be interested for sure.

I am a history noob, was barely interested in history during school. But given the political situation I feel I should learn more about world history. But I have no clue where to begin. Any resources would be highly appreciated.

If they did use a translation, would it be "camarada," or "compañero/compañera"? Or maybe something else?

It seems like it should be usable with stone age level technology. A cart could be used to move things around on land and a sail could be used to move boats on water without having to paddle them.

I began to wonder why all the planets are named after Roman gods, except Uranus. Why does it not follow the convention?

Also, as far as I can tell, all the major moons are named after the Roman gods, except for Phobos and Deimos (the moons of Mars, which is also a Roman god). Why is there this disconnect?

And yes, I am aware they are (mostly) all the same gods, but just with different names. I would like to know why this handful of celestial bodies break the convention.