I've seen claims that it was a highly effective contraceptive with no side effects, yet we aren't totally sure what it actually was. So what hard evidence do we have about its effects on the human body? Can we be sure its traits haven't been exaggerated, or that its side effects didn't go unnoticed or ignored?

Today of course many large cities have this issue and it made me wonder if it occurred in ancient times as well, especially in cities with huge populations. With the massive wealth inequality that existed in many ancient societies like Rome I would expect that it did but that's looking at it through the lens of modern life where homelessness is an unfortunate but often accepted part of life. With the lack of a social safety net outside of the relatively limited grain dole and landlords demanding rent on a daily basis how did the large numbers of poorer residents cope with housing costs?

I’m aware to a certain extent, that they had some foundations in classics, to what degree and how they went about it eludes me. Can anyone elaborate what that may have looked like for them? I know this may be a genera question, if it helps to narrow down to a person; Thomas Jefferson.

Please flair this as diplomacy

I have been reading some articles about the manufacturing problems involving semiconductors and was wondering why there is a high percentage of all semiconductors manufacturing, located in Taiwan, and how did it happen? Also, why have other nations with great industrial power like the USA, Japan, or Germany, never had the initiative to become major producers of semiconductors?

I hear a lot of people these days talking about the internal rot of the United States government, culture, etc. I'm wondering if there are any preserved records or writings that reflect a similar sentiment from historical civilizations that eventually collapsed.

I remember going to see a talk by Tariq Ali about his book "Winston Churchill: his times, his crimes". He talked about how prior to his lionization by Thatcher, he was actually an intensely unpopular man. He pointed to his domestic repression and resistance to it, the existence of a revolt within the Conservative party in 1942 against him, and his reputation as a toff amongst toffs amongst working people, and as a "half breed" amongst the aristocracy. There were also other things (that I'll be honest with you, I don't remember). So my question is – how popular was Churchill throughout his career? What was this 1942 Conservative revolt? (And to those of you who have read his book – is it worth the £25?)

I suppose this question is asking about the historical method, especially as it pertains to getting useful information from living witnesses. I’m thinking in particular about the increasingly common museum exhibits that record witnesses speaking on a subject.

Long story short, my family and I have been talking for a while about starting a project for our kids/grandkids that would focus on trying to record some of the family history in a more modern way than traditional genealogy stuff. Ideally, we want to sit down with the grandparents and other elders to record interviews with them so that, even after they’re gone, we can give the younger generations a chance to hear a bit from the older ones what their world was like.

However, we’re struggling to come up with more than basic biographical informational questions as an interview method (e.g. where were you born? Who were your parents? Etc.). I’m curious whether there’s any best practice in the historian community on how to pull out interesting/useful information from interviews like this or research on what types of questions might be the most useful.

Apologies for any clear ignorance in this post. I’m not even sure I know quite how to ask what I’m asking!

Pretty much just the title. It seemed like Lincoln's strategy to deal with the nascent Confederacy was just to wait it out and not make the first move, which as it happened turned out brilliantly. But do we know what he - or the Republican party in general - intended to do if the Confederates had adopted the same strategy and a state of de facto secession had developed?

I have a toddler and he and his daycare mates all love planes, trains and cars. My son is a devote member of the church of Thomas the Tank Engine. This interest is incredibly widespread among little boys in the US. Were there any other "universal" loves of todders before these were commonplace? Specifically asking about the 1800s USA for the scope of the subreddit, but I'd be curious about any place and time.

Overheard some of Joe Scarborough's show this morning and he kept repeating that right-wing evangelicals were pro-choice "when the Beatles broke up." It sounded like he was suggesting that one or two of the big evangelical leaders at the time decided abortion would be a useful tool in rallying voters, but I am curious as to whether they really wouldve been considered pro-choice back then, what evangelical theological perspectives on abortion were at the time, and how they started theologizing to the complete opposite end of the debate if it is true about the political shift. There is notoriously little in the Bible to graft onto the abortion debate, so I am very interested in how the theological rhetoric changed. I also realize that there is more dimensionality to the "evangelical" identifier than I am giving it in this post, but am unsure how to best address that, so hopefully you will understand the general question .

A topic that I followed the discussion weeks ago (on Twitter), regarding the existence of anti-Semitic Christians. When the question was raised that Jesus was ethnically Jewish, which would lead these beings to contradiction, others said that this group is against the Jewish religion itself (those who only did not follow the Christian messiah, therefore) than ethnicity, having a idea with roots in the Middle Ages.

​

However, other user stated that Jesus was a practitioner of traditional Judaism and that his mother (also a follower of the traditional Judaism of his time, for what the affirmer says), Maria, had her story altered/hidden by the church because she was not what they thought of her (which I doubt, to be clear).

​

As I know nothing about the division - and possible rivalry - of Jews and Christians, whether today's definition of "ethnicity" is equivalent to ancient times, the different interpretations of Jesus in Hebrew culture and how anti-Semitism was mounted or altered during the years (that could involve ethnicity or religious practice of some tradition), I wanted to know if there was any sense that encompassed all of this.

​

EDIT: I mean, in the case of Maria, that person was referring to her having more children, besides Jesus, with Joseph, and that Catholicism (and the Orthodox Church too, from what I read on the internet) hid this to keep her virginity in the tradition (from what I've checked, "brother" wasn't a term to be read in literal sense), but anyway, I don't know anything.

I recently watched a video about the Battle of Midway on YouTube, and something about the battle really confused me. Why did the American planes attack the Japanese fleet in waves, rather than all at once? The video highlighted the heavy losses sustained by the intial attacking pilots as they were torn to pieces by the zeros, but it made perfect sense because each wave was only a squadron while the Japanese had over thirty fighters on their combat air patrol. In total, the Americans committed 88 carrier-based attack aircraft at a time to destroying the Japanese carriers, and it seems like it would have made far more sense for them all to arrive at once- split the enemy forces, higher density of projectiles making it difficult for the ships to evade

This is the timeline I got from Wikipedia about the first set of American strikes against the Japanese fleet in the battle on 4 June 1941:

0925: 15 torpedo bombers from the Hornet attack

0930: 14 torpedo bombers from the Enterprise attack

1000: 12 torpedo bombers from the Yorktown attack

1025: 30 dive bombers from the Enterprise and 17 dive bombers from the Yorktown attack

There is an hour between the first attack and the last attack, but the simultaneous attack at 1025 from two different carrier task forces indicates to me that they were perfectly capable of coordinating such an attack (unless it was pure coincidence), so why not do it the whole time?

Pretty much the title. I’ve recently been down an pre-clovis rabbit hole and pretty much every story has the line (paraphrasing) “this archeologist/ palaeontologist was launched out of the room until they were vindicated 20/30 years later. It still seems, from my very limited perspective, that “clovis firsters” are dead set against recognising anything older than 13,000 years.

I understand that contact between the two civilizations was limited due to the huge mountain ranges on the border, but surely both of them must've wondered what lies on the other side? They could've also interacted through sea trade. The only example of contact with China given in our textbooks talks about some Chinese travellers visiting India to check out the Buddhist pilgrimage sites. It's hard to imagine that contact between two bordering states was so limited.

Leif Erikison vs Columbus

So this buggles me. Leif Erikison, and the viking discovered America in the 11th/12th century and there were, tho I haven't read them, written depictions of the voyage and the land itself, i.e. The Vinland Sagas, so why didn't Columbus, the Spanish, the Portuguese or whatever colonizing country thought "oh maybe there is something out there to the west, that's not Asia". Didn't they disregard Vinland as a myth? Did they think it was just some kind of Island? Did they simply not know about it?

Ses Monsters are often associated wtih medieval people and was regarded as a myth from medieval times, specifically the Vikings. However after some search, i noticed that most of those “sea monsters” records, descriptions, myths and drawings (except Jonah's fish) came from 16-18th century, more of a modern time belief during and after the age of discovery. which is plausible since the increasing seafaring practices, however it's relatively hard to find such records during the medieval time, specifically Kraken and sea serpents, while often associated with Norse mythology, it's not recorded until 17-18th century. There were couple of Ancient Greece records of sea monsters but I'm not sure either of these beliefs made it into medieval times.

So is it true that except Jonah's fish and some other biblical or mythology, medieval generally have less myths, descriptions, records and interest on giant sea monsters comparing to the Age of discovery? Is it because of the lack of ability for seafaring? Do medieval sailors believe in giant squids or sea serpents as same as their decedent in 16-18th century do?

Where did they move to? Did they retain an "Afrikaans" culture? Did they adapt to the countries/ cultures? I am using Afrikaans very loosely, considering the fact that the language was only recognized in the 1930s.

I am a Vietnamese-American who has had a life long interest regarding the Vietnam War, particularly my family’s role within it due to multiple members serving within the different branches of the South Vietnamese Armed Forces. However, whenever I try to find out information about the war, particularly from the Southern perspective, there is either often very scant mention of the ARVN as a relevant force or there is an excessive focus placed upon American involvement or the PAVN/North Vietnamese as the main, significant Vietnamese force in the country. Are there any good sources that you guys can recommend that can offer a more objective perspective on the ARVN, or at least something that provides a more objective insight on South Vietnam as a whole? Thanks and sorry if my question seems rather long winded!

The diseases that brought from Europe by explorers and colonists included smallpox, chickenpox, typhus, malaria, etc, but the only disease I'm aware of that was transferred from the Native Americans to the Europeans was syphilis, and that is debated.

Why was there such an asymmetrical impact of disease on Natives? Shouldn't the Europeans have been similarly impacted by the novel nature of New World diseases?