In addition to the more general question about the Soviet supply situation, I'd also like to ask as more specifically whether the whole "rail gauge" thing is as important as it often gets made out to be. I understand for the Germans it was probably quite a real concern, but you rarely hear of the Soviets having the same issues when they entered Europe. I know the Soviets received some locomotives from lend-lease, but I've not read anything specific about the quantity, nor whether these locomotives were intended for use in Europe, much less whether they would have been sufficient to account for even a fraction of the rolling stock they needed for operating in Axis-aligned territory.

If the Soviets lacked the rail-based supply issues of the Germans, was it because mismatched rail gauge wasn't really the overwhelming problem it's sometimes portrayed as, or were they able to capture enough Axis rolling stock and/or receive enough lend-leased locomotives to supply their needs? If rolling stock wasn't really a concern for them at all, is that because the road infrastructure in Axis-aligned territories was sufficient that the Soviets didn't need to use rail to the same extent the Germans were forced to?

I am watching the third episode, "Fall of Rohm", of BBC's 'Hitler's Circle of Evil'. It is talking about Ernst Rohm and his like for men, and his leadership of the Brownshirt, SA paramilitary service.

The show posits the idea that Heidrich finds evidence that Himmler finds damning against Rohm.. He fuels Hitler's fear of homosexuality to demonstrate that the SA has become a corrupt institution, full of gay orgies, it seems.

What is complicating for me: the night of the SA purge, internal documents state, that the SS find Rohm and others, shacked up with other men. The SS then uses this an excuse to convict them, and eventually execute them.

Regardless of the horrible outcome, was the SS's finding fabricated?..or was the SA that "ahem", sexually liberated?

What's the actual truth here?

In the 19th and perhaps early 20th century, before most people owned cars and horse ownership for transportation was commonplace, was there any registration or licensing system for horses akin to cars today?

Did the parties really 'switch' in 20th century US?

Most references I can find about the Macuahuitl's effectiveness against Spanish forces are about their use against Spanish Horses, but nothing about their use against Spanish infantry. Would it be extremely difficult for an Aztec soldier to kill a Spaniard in steel armor with a Macuahuitl? If so, how did the Spanish infantry suffer such high casualties during the war against the Aztecs?

Follow up question, what would a Roman battle ahip look like?

The Entente encouraged Italy to go to war with the Ottomans over Libya against the apprehensions of Germany and Austria. What exactly did the Entente have to gain from this? Were they just trying to drive a wedge between Italy and the rest of the Triple Alliance?

Doing an assessment piece that requires me to discuss the legacy of Marc Bloch, however I’m really struggling to get enough information to form a cohesive speech. His impact on historiography and the human element behind history is all I’ve got so far, but most of the information I can find focuses on the Annales and that’s not what I need. Point me in the right direction people of reddit!

So I'm watching Ken Burns' documentary of Prohibition on Netflix and they mention that one of the many causes that Frances Willard fought for in the 1880's aside from prohibition was raising the age of consent from TEN to 16!?

I was shocked that it was THAT low even then. So I guess if anyone has some insights as to how the age of consent progressed (or not) in the US, I'd love to know more

It seems that there has always been some sort of backlash to any leap forward humans make. For example, the concept of evolution, or new technology/media. I was wondering if going into space would evoke any sort of backlash during that time (especially considering the decade).

I realize that the official theology of the Catholic Church is monotheistic, and that when Catholics pray to the patron saint of something, they're asking for the saint to intercede with God for them, not for the saint to directly change things (as they would if they were praying to a god in a polytheistic religion).

However, would the average person in medieval Europe without a religious education have understood that distinction? Would they have known that when they were praying to saints, they were supposed to ask saints to intercede and that saints didn't directly intervene in their lives? Or would they have viewed saints in a more polytheistic way and expected them to directly change the world?

I realize that the answer might be different for different places and times (such as Scandinavia in the 900's vs Italy in the 1300's), and I'm especially in newly Christianized, recently pagan areas and places on the periphery of the Catholic world where Catholic orthodoxy wasn't as strongly enforced as it would have been in Italy or Iberia.

Crassus was part of the senatorial class but he made his wealth in commerce even though that was not allowed for senators. Was this law already abolished during his time or was he allowed to do it because of corruption?

The British tactics, of charging German trenches in ww1, only to be massacred. Was the same as the boer war. Why didn't they learn from the disasters of the boer war

[deleted]

Was Portugal unusual in this respect? Or did the other European powers colonizing the Americas have similar rates of settlement?

What were the social effects of this exodus in Portugal? Apparently 600 of those 700 thousand people migrated between 1700-1760. I understand that this is a long period of time and the effect might not be as dramatic as I’m envisioning, but that scale of movement 100 years before steamships really took me by surprise.

I’d be especially interested in comparisons with neighboring Spain, but haven’t been able to find any reliable statistics.

Note: This number comes from the Wikipedia page “Portuguese Brazilian” and is sourced (but I can’t get the link to work here). I saw a similar figure in a museum in Rio today.

Apologies in advance if this isn’t the right sub for this, but I digress! I have an absolute fascination with ‘notable figures’ of history, that is to say historic figures that are well and truly inimitable, either by deed or character, or both.

One of my all time favourite books is Andrew Roberts’ ‘Napoleon the Great’, and I was wondering if you guys could recommend any other biographies that can mix historical accuracy with (relatively) accessible vocabulary, and, most importantly, a kind of flair in the writing that saves it from feeling like a textbook?

Edit: Thank you in advance! Edit 2: I’ve been considering buying Ruth Scurr’s ‘Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution.’ Has anybody read it and would vouch for it?

So I read that color photography was introduced in 1915, but up until the 70s black/white cameras were primarly used. Why did this transition take so long, and why did this transition become so fast in the 70s/80s?