[deleted]

I saw a video on YouTube that was a real time CGI recreation of the Titanic sinking, and all of the captions of the video about the lifeboats being launched mentioned the number of passengers being less than half of what the life boats could take.

Why on earth over an hour into the ordeal when the boat is practically half sunken has lifeboat 1 just launched with 12 out of a possible 65 people?

Did people go to these like it’s a movie, as in they bought tickets and all? How did this work?

Exactly as the title implies. Are their particular benefits those helmets provide? Is it benefits against a particular weapon commonly used in that time period?

For example, how would a Medieval Studies Ph.D. be viewed during the highering process? Would in an interdisciplinary background be seen as valuable or as an application weakness? Would such an interdisciplinary background be attractive to multiple departments? Let's hypothetically say that they studied History and Litterature... would they potentially be attractive candidates for both history and English departments or neither? Just curious for what kind of perceptions historians tends to have regarding this

I've always wondered what was the connection between the Old Saxons, a people in the north west, and the modern day Saxons in the East. Did the Saxons migrate to modern day Saxony? If not why is is called Saxony?

[deleted]

I have been curious about what seems to be distinct differences between how certain European powers approached the colonization of the new world. For example, the colonization as carried out by Spain and England (and later, the United States).

In what is now the United states and Canada, it seems like the approach was more explicitly genocidal. Some native groups were destroyed entirely, others were forcefully moved to reservations. It doesn't seem like intentional assimilation happened until later.

In Central and South America, on the other hand, the Spanish seemed to take particular care to spread their language and religion. Also, the focus seemed to be less on moving Spanish citizens to their colonies, and more on extracting resources.

Are the differences that I'm perceiving reflective of actual distinctions between how certain regions were colonized? If so, why is this the case?

Hello, I’m currently majoring in history and in the process of transferring schools(and I’m also in a crisis). My dream is to be a college professor. I really look up to my professors and could see myself in academia. However, the job market for history professors is absolutely abysmal. I’m still early in my college career(going in to sophomore year) so I am considering double majoring(I’ve already fulfilled a lot of history major reqs) in a STEM subject such as statistics or scrapping the history major altogether and getting an engineering degree. I do not have the natural gift in physics, math, etc. like I do in history, but with extra effort I would definitely be able to manage those classes. I like designing and building so I could see myself going for civil engineering, however my passion truly is history. I have considered other job prospects for history majors outside of professorship, but I honestly can’t see myself teaching high school(especially when many students dislike history). I have also looked at law school, government, media, etc. but nothing strikes me as much as wanting to be a professor. Therefore, I’m considering getting a more marketable degree such as engineering and then pursuing a history masters or PhD later on in life after I’ve saved and have financial security. Then I could just adjunct as a history professor on the side and not have to worry about the finances. My parents are not wealthy, so by the time I graduate I’ll probably be 100k plus in student loan debt. On that note, my parents are on the lower middle class end so I’ve witnessed financial struggle my whole life, and I don’t want to experience it after years and years of schooling. What should I do?

I've read that some rail guns took a very long time to fire their guns to the point that they were only fired a few times a day.

I am wondering what the specifics reasons are behind the chosen point of entry.

​

My first thought would be logistics, but neither Belgium or The Netherlands are much further. Both of these options would have put them much closer to Germany. My assumption is the Germans would have pulled back from France to defend the homeland. If anything, they could have driven South and split their forces. Even Denmark, though further from England, would be not too far from Berlin.

​

I would love to learn the thinking behind this decision.

After listening to a nuclear weapons historian give a presentation at my school this question has become really intriguing to me.

For example, did fighter command pilots have their “own” spitfire which they would fly when called up? Or did the pilots just scramble to the nearest aircraft at the base when the alarm was raised?

I find it difficult to find information on this topic online, if anyone could point me to an article I would be very grateful.

My understand of medieval warfare was that sword fighting most mostly for personal defense and that actual battles between armies rarely used swords with spears being more common. Is this true? What weapons were most commonly used in battles besides the spear?