I'm an American paratrooper on the way to Normandy. The idea of being killed in the battlefield frightens me. When the time to drop comes, my buddies jump off the plane, yet I remain inside. What happens to me?

I'm aware donating blood regularly can be good for you. However the health benefits of donating blood are seen long term and would be (I assume) very difficult to see/prove with the level on medical knowledge available at the time bloodletting was a thing.

Also, people with high blood pressure can get an immediate (tho short) lessening of symptoms from loosing some blood. But chronic stress, obesity, and metabolic syndrome were hardly prevalent conditions back then to render bloodletting useful for that purpose.

So... what gives?

Apologies if I’m in the wrong subreddit - but I think this concerns patterns that have existed for a longer time than 20 years - a Friend of mine was telling me that using a computer was seen as a ‘women’s job’ because they were essentially modern typewriters. What happened since that period (I’m guessing post WW2) that caused fewer women to go into STEM subjects? I mean no offence with this, just genuinely interested.

Eisenhower was arguably the best commander of a major force in all of World War II. He went from being the main commander in Northwest Africa to being the main commander on the Western Front after D-Day. However, before World War II, he had almost no combat experience. In World War I, he only helped train American forces to fight in Europe, without seeing actual combat, due to the relatively short period of American involvement in World War I. Therefore, how did he become the commander of all forces in Northwest Africa without combat experience?

China has population much bigger than Japan which should mean more people for the army so how come Japan was able to win both the first Sino-Japanese war and the second Sino-Japanese war.

How much internal or extremal pressure was there following the Nuclear disaster?

The timing certainly seems to fit - a scant 5 years after V. I. LENIN nuclear reactor 4 in Pripyat exploded, the entire soviet Union dissolved. Shortly after - glasnost was implemented.

One of the recurring themes of the series is 'how much is the cost of a lie' - its well known that 'alarmism' was punishable by hard labour, and a pacified pliable populous was the aim of the party - one that listened to the truth of the party, however much it wasn't. And the cost of that lie - as the series implies - is the society itself.

I learned in grade school that some Native American tribes had large populations, possibly up into 100,000s. However I have always pictured Native Americans in my head as being nomadic and living in a group of 10 to 50 people. For example think of the tribes in movies like Dances with Wolves. Did the members of the largest tribe split up into smaller bands? Or were nomadic tribes much larger than I thinking?

Was it something that happened overnight? Was it planned? How did it affected former Soviet citizens?

Basically the title. For context, I was arguing with someone who denied that what happened to the Native Americans was genocide. Obviously, that is a ridiculous claim, as there is a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise.

At one point, however, I did make the claim that the majority of the violence that occurred was initiated by the West, and not Native Americans. My reasoning was that, if we view the colonies/America as a conquering force that was expanding westward, then the Native Americans were most likely defending themselves, and not making moves to conquer the US. I also looked at some notable Native American attacks on colonial villages (on Wikipedia lol), and even then, it seemed that those attacks were in response to colonial violence to some degree. That being said, while the person I was arguing with couldn't prove I was wrong, I know I'm not the most informed, and that my history is not the best, so I just wanted to fact check my claim.

In almost every video game leather armor is the first kind you get, but how effective can leather be in stopping an arrow, deflecting a sword, etc, in real life?

I see pages and tidbits of info here and there, but can't seem to find relatively recent books on it similar to research on the Mali empire.

I know that one way is English and the other is German, but is there a correct version you should generally say?

We know that fandom and fan tourism isn’t a new phenomenon (Pamela and the Tale of Young Werther come to mind from more recent times). I know from previous questions asked here that classical tourism at Ilium/Troy existed, on some level. Was there corresponding tourism for other works, such as the places mentioned in the Odyssey – vague as those locations are? Were there anything like Scylla tours or the Charybdis Inn in Messina, for instance? Was there tourism related to other classical works or myths*?

Obviously I'm chauvinising here - comparing our post-literature culture, and the Game of Thrones tourism, Harry Potter theme parks, and Nakatomi Plaza selfies of our time with a very different popular culture. But I'm curious to know how tourism and the literary traditions of the time intersected.

*In the myth department, I suspect the line between vacation an pilgrimage sometimes blurred.

As titles says, my family and I were discussing World War 2 and I stated that Hitler wanted to create a museum of the extermination of Jews and some family members did not believe that was true. I tried searching the entire internet for it but I could not find an article discussing this. I think I might have heard it through a YouTube video but yet again I couldn’t find any videos relating to that too. Is this true?

Seeing that the Ottomans won almost every war during their rise (excluding the Interregnum) of the empire, I wonder whether various captains, viziers or sultans conducted brilliantly executed campaigns or battle plans that really showed any genious? Or perhaps a step further, can we talk about a deeper, layered thought of Ottoman way of waging war and conducting battles (again, excluding the feigned retreats or the ships at the Golden Horn) which we come across in one or among several generations of generals?

So I recently listened to some documentaries on "Saladin", and while I've always heard that he was a merciful conqueror, these programs indicate he was actually rather ruthless, although definitely less so than the original crusaders.

What's the consensus among historians? Do we have any clear indications either way?

When the Bible says that Judas sold Jesus for 30 silver coins, was that a great amount of money or did Judas sold Jesus for "cheap"?

We're not left over with hundreds of thousands of blades scattered around the place. What did we do with our weapons when they were no longer needed?

Obviously I'm not just talking about swords. Spears, axes, maces, halberds, whatever. I know we have large collections of ancient weapons all around the world, but where are the rest? Were they repurposed? Lost? Broken? Discarded?

I know that the Romans lived in an area with a lot of Italian peoples and there was even the Social War where the Romans and Italians fought only for Italians to win Roman citizenship. However did the Romans see themselves as one of the Italian peoples, in an ethnic sense?

Or did the Romans see themselves as a different ethnicity?

Was it during the revolution that patriots/americans adopted their own accent?

Traditionally, the South is shown as a society defined by racial division, with rich white plantation owners living a life of leisure, while their African slaves toil in harsh conditions.

But what about poor(or just not particularly well-off) white people? After all, they won't have enough money to have plantations or slaves, and with slavery being so ingrained in culture and economy, I assume there wasn't much of a market for paid labor either.