Pre-Elizabeth, Victoria was queen. She too held the roles of leader and head of state, no? The statue of Victoria outside Buckingham Palace reads "Regina Imperatrix" - Queen Emperor - so wouldn't she have been the head too? When did the Queen take over?

I want to hear from German citizens what it was like living through the rise of Hitler's power, and how they (or others) justified or ignored the development of the concentration camps. I also want a better understanding of the steps that lead to the gas chambers.

To illustrate the question, it seems generally considered appropriate to excavate Ancient tombs in the name of historical research. By the same token, I presume that if someone died 20 years ago, opening their grave for anything other than criminal forensic study wouldn't be looked upon kindly by the mass of Historians and Archeologists. At what point in between "Ancient" and "Contemporary" does a grave become appropriate to open for historical research?

What are some considerations a warrior needs to make when fighting with a bronze sword vs. fighting with an iron sword? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bronze sword would be shorter than the iron one, while also needing to be sharpened more often and will be easier to damage or break. Bronze, however, will last longer because it doesn't corrode as much as iron (which will eventually oxidize into something unusable as a weapon if not properly cared for).

​

How do these factors, and others, change sword fighting between the two ages?

YOU ARE LEAVING

THE AMERICAN SECTOR

ВЫ ВЫЕЗЖАЕТЕ ИЗ

АМЕРИКАНСКОГО СЕКТОРА

VOUS SORTES

DU SECTEUR AMERICAIN

SIE VERLASSEN DEN AMERIKANiSCHEN SEKTOR

^(US ARMY)

I've seen this mentioned in passing several times, and it makes sense. Even with the proliferation of anti-tank weapons, it's a lot easier to kill/injury an infantryman than disable a tank, and at the same time, tanks are less effective if they're not working in concert with infantry, preferably motorized or mechanized.

But not everything that makes logical sense turns out to be true. Are there any records of this happening? Was it a bigger problem for the Allies, Soviets, or Nazis? What would a tank division/regiment that still had a good number of tanks, but suffered significant casualties to it's mechanized/motorized infantry do? Keep pushing forward? Pull back and wait for replacements? Try and draft ad-hoc replacement infantry from nearby foot infantry? Stay in place and take a more defensive role?

Thanks!

Every single post here almost always has every reply deleted.

I don’t get any “history” here.

It seems to be such a simple invention. It could carved out of wood or made of brass and worn over the groin like a belt or an undergarment.

We’ve invented far more complex things but we didn’t invent a groin cup? Something seems off about that. Wouldn’t it help?

I’ve done kickboxing and that invention is definitely useful. So why wasn’t it invented earlier? Even for basic martial arts, was this invention just not thought of despite us inventing intricate armor and weapons, we couldn’t figure out a groin cup?

[deleted]

I'm touring the Scottish Museum in Edinburgh, and I'm reading about the Jacobite/Hanoverian split, and the subsequent warring this caused.

During a Google search, I stumbled upon Grady McWhiney, who has attempted to draw parallels between Scottish and Confederate heritage, and potential influences on the American Civil War. As best I can tell, his work has been debated, if not debunked entirely.

My question - is there any indication of Confederate politicians referencing the Jacobites in any way? And, is there a consensus on McWhiney's work?

Thanks for your help.

Russians originated in an area that was mainly plains, and doesn’t seem to be too good for agriculture due to its climate. It also experienced various invasions from “horse cultures” due to its flat nature. Wouldn’t it’s less hospitable climate (for agriculture) and flat nature of its land (making it ideal for horses, as well as susceptible to invasion - which would ideally be countered by a horse-based culture, which was militarily dominant before the modern age) lead a horse-based culture to be ideal for its geographic position?

Also, how did Russia manage to survive for so long as an agriculture-based society throughout so many invasions? Especially by other horse-based cultures (ex. Mongols) seemingly better suited to Russia’s geography.

[deleted]

Christianity was dominant already by 1000AD. Were the old believers seen with the 'backwards provincial' stereotype? Or was the Hellenic stragglers by 1000AD a myth?

Looking at the Asian turtle ships, they're remarkably different from European ships of the line. Why the weird design? Were sleeker ships not more efficient?

[deleted]

I'm just curious whether or not there was a pre-HRE.

[deleted]