I have specifically always heard stories about how every man of draft age was conscripted to fight in world war 2. Heck, there were even songs written about how all the men left were too young or too old. As a female firefighter myself I know better than anyone that women are perfectly capable of doing the job but I have trouble believing that the times allowed for it. So, in times of all-out war, specifically ww2, who did serve as first responders? Was it women/older men? Or were there exceptions made? If so, how did they determine that?

I just got to see an amazing heirloom from my father's side of the family which was a congressional medal of Honor awarded to our family member for capturing the battle flag of the 61st Alabama infantry at the battle of Five Forks. He crossed enemy lines to achieve this feat, and while I was left in awe of getting to see and hear about such a well preserved piece of history that had been stumbled upon by accident, I was also left feeling a bit confused. What was the significance of these battle flags, and why would capturing one be Medal of Honor worthy? I don't mean to sound ignorant, but if a soldier under my command risked so much just for a flag I would think I would be more inclined to slap them across the head rather than award them.

P.S. Would I be correct in assuming this is the inspiration for the game "capture the flag?"

In 1542, Conquistador Francisco de Orellano emerged from the Amazon in 1542 and claimed to have seen large cities in the interior, some of which were populated by women warriors. From what I know, historians have debated Orellano's claims ever since with some arguing that he was lying or confused and others saying that he was telling the truth. Those who believe Orellano have gotten a boost in recent years with new discoveries that point to the Amazon having a large pre-contact population, but, obviously questions still remain.

I haven't heard anyone debate Captain Hernando de Ribera's account of his journey through the South American interior from 1543 to 1545. While reading Cabeza de Vaca's journal of his South American expeditions from 1540 to 1545 (they are almost as cool as his earlier and more famous North American journey), he mentioned receiving a report from Ribera where Ribera claimed that he also encountered female tribes, as well as "little people," "people with beards," "black people," and "people with white and yellow metal." Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with the geography of South America and the translator for the version of the text doesn't seem to know enough about South American history to offer much help, but I believe that Ribera traveled from what is today northern Argentina to northern Bolivia.

My gut instinct is that Ribera was lying, but if I'm correct about the location where he traveled, I know that archaeologists have made new discoveries that show the population of this area was much larger than previously thought. So is there any chance Ribera was telling the truth?

If so, how do we explain it? I can see the people with white and yellow being the Incas or another Andean civilization (he even mentions something that sounds like Lake Titicaca). The only explanation I can figure for the little people is that they could simply be a tribe that are genetically predisposed to being small and perhaps the black and bearded people are also genetic outliers for the region in that they have slightly darker skin and some facial hair. The Spanish had also been in Peru for 10 years, so maybe Ribera simply heard rumors of an escaped slave village and the bearded people were Spaniards? If not these explanations, is there any evidence of pre-Columbian African settlement of South America? I know we have the very questionable Olmec claim, but I haven't heard anything about South America. It would certainly seem to be a possibility.

Sorry for the long post. Looking forward to hearing answers.

Source: Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca's The South American Expeditions, 1540-1545 translated by Baker H. Morrow.

[deleted]

First ( late 1920s America): if one had some sort of serum or fluid other than blood in their bloodstream, would it have been possible for doctors/researchers to identify, perhaps (more desirably) even isolate, the fluid from the blood stream? Perhaps from a sample? Second (also late 20s Am): How difficult was it to cross borders? Specifically speaking: From Eastern European countries to Russia, Russia to India or other South Asian countries, and between African colonies/countries. Third (WW1): If one found a radio or any other form of electronic/mechanic transmitting/communication device receiving/broadcasting a signal, could one trace and/or follow the signal to track down where the signal is coming from/going to (assuming they were a mechanical whiz of some kind)? Thanks to all those who will contribute, I may make frequent visits to this sub as I get deeper into the story.

In movies and such we see dogfights as being hectic and chaotic. While I'm sure Hollywood and game developers may be embellishing a decent amount, how did allied pilots keep track of each other and avoid flying into each other when they had so many things to track at once?

I guess I should be more specific. During slavery time in the USA, did they ever sold, trade and enslave the Mexicans? You hear a lot about black people and the slavery history but you never hear if Mexican had any rights or were also treated like property. (Not good with words)

Even in the early 1900s, you hear about African Americans living in segregated communities but I never heard if Mexicans were also segregated. Tried getting info on Google but I couldn't find anything.

Bonus and last question. How did the USA become the only "America" with foreigners and literally anyone in the USA? To provide more context: People in the USA consider themselves as Americans and anyone from the rest of the Americas is not? (Hopefully this is not controversial)

Thanks!

I imagine the importance of Plato to post-Augustinian/pre-Thomist Christian theology may have helped.

I’ve been reading up on him through Wikipedia but I’d really like a legitimate biographical book.

I’d prefer if it were in English but German would work too, especially since I’m already trying to learn German (an interesting book in the language would really help; I also don’t want the first book I read in German to be Harry Potter lol...)

Thanks.

So this might be a pretty simple question, but what exactly was an “Army Group”?

I’ve found pretty detailed descriptions of divisions on the internet, both infantry and panzer ones, but that’s where it stops.

Take the invasion of Poland for example. There were two army groups: Army Group North under Field Marshal Fedor Von Beck, and Army Group South under Gerd Von Runstedt.

An Army Group sounds rather self explanatory, and should consist of a bunch of armies. How many of these were there? Did these armies consist of both infantry and panzer divisions or were there separate infantry and panzer armies that were made up of just the one type of divisions? And lastly, how many divisions were there in one Army?

These questions might sound all over the place, so I’d really just appreciate if you could explain how the Wehrmacht was organised at levels above divisions.

Thanks a lot.

Native populations in the Americas were devistated by contracting "new" diseases from the Old World via contact with European explorers. By my understanding, the European explorers were not afflicted to nearly the same degree, as they already had some level of immunity. Namely, their communities had been previously exposed to those same Old World diseases for several generations, thus selecting the population for people who were either immune or otherwise better equipped to survive bouts of that particular disease.

​

Is this initial presumption correct?

​

If not, what were the root causes of the differing disease outcomes between the native populations and the Europeans?

​

If yes, were the Europeans similarly afflicted with any "new" diseases from the New World after contact with the native populations? i.e., Was it a "two-way street"?

​

If it was reciprocal, what were the New World diseases that afflicted the Europeans, and why don't they feature as prominently in our kown history?

​

If it was not reciprocal, why?

I've heard the saying: A language is a dialect with an army, case in point, since Portuguese and Spanish speakers can understand each other without switching to a common language they would probably be considered a single language, but they are spoken in different countries, so they are considered different languages.

Then we have the case of China where the speakers of the many "dialects" can't understand each other and have to switch to a common "dialect", Mandarin. When people can't understand each other when they speak we call those different languages but the Chinese government insists they are dialects and so the world just rolls with it.

My question is, when did this start?, were the many Chinese languages recognized as such in one of the many time periods when China wasn't unified?, or has chinese culture always insisted they speak the same language?, if so, why?

[deleted]

Pearl Harbor (and the Philippines) were examples of where rows of neatly parked planes became easy targets for enemy fighters. However, now when you fly into civilian airports that share tarmacs with military air wings (ex. Charleston) then you notice the planes are in neat rows. I realize that cruise missiles and other modern ordinance probably renders spacing of planes (and bunkers and revetments) irrelevant but when did that change?

Hello everyone, I just have a quick question. How do I get the full, unedited version of the footage of the battle of midway which was filmed by John Ford and his team? I have tried searching on the web multiple times but just get the original cut version and the Torpedo Squadron 8 film. Sometimes I see some videos with some footage that is not in the final cut version but not all of it.

Thanks, Splat

Other capital ships typically got systematic names, based on things like the country’s political subdivisions, geographic features, or historic personages. But there were a lot of aircraft carriers named for mythological figures, abstract ideas like Enterprise, animals, and other things that seem out of place with typically-nationalistic names given to battleships and cruisers. Some seem just random. Why Ranger, for example?

[deleted]