During the battle of Stalingrad in WW2, how well was the battle portrayed to the outside world? Did Americans follow it closely and hope the Soviets won as they were our Allies or were Americans more concerned with Japan and fighting in Africa? Also how much did the American government know about the battles on the Eastern front? Was FDR briefed on a daily basis how the war was going for the Soviets or was he just informed about the big battles and not much else?

Both countries share the same island and both started as european colonies. And yet Dominican Republic is apparently the largest economy in the Caribbean while Haiti is the poorest country in the Americas. So why such a large difference?

Whenever I learn about history it’s often about Europe. When I want to learn about Africa the most I get are the Mali Empire, birthplace of humans, Ancient Egypt, a couple modern wars, and the Slave Trade. Why is it that Africa isn’t ever in the spotlight when it comes to talking about world history?

In my conceptualization of the crusades, going from relatively temperate France and Britain into the Middle East, having never experienced climates that arid before, must have been a very uncomfortable experience for European crusaders, especially considering their wearing of full maille and all the underclothes that went along with their armor. So what I’m wondering is if we have any sources which address what crusaders’ reactions were to experiencing high temperatures of the Middle East, and what they did to keep cool under all their armor.

In wikipedia it says that the Kitara Empire included Uganda, northern Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Rwanda and Burundi, who is quite big, but this article doesn't have any citations and I didn't found too much in other sites.

Probably a frivolous question, but I was looking at the map this morning and realized there might be an interesting story here.

I had some questions for this sub about Neanderthals but realized they might be too old for this subreddit. I realize prehistory is a thing but I don't think that has stopped historians from trying to learn more about it and push prehistory further back.

Thank you.

Why was his regnal number changed to I instead of staying as VI when he became king of England? Just weird seeing the same guy have 2 regnal numbers. Thanks in advance.

I'm currently reading Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom by Stephen R. Platt and The Search for Modern China by Jonathan Spence. One thing I notice is both of the texts read as if Hong's visions were "real" in the literal sense. Were there any documents that he recorded of his visions or were they mainly just conversations between him and his cousin?

Also, what was it about Hong Xiuquan that convinced the Triads to join him?

I have seen lots of impressive descriptions of the theoretical capabilities of Mongol/Turkish/Manchu composite bows suggesting they were far better than European longbows and should be significantly better than smoothbore muskets in skilled hands. Ranges of 500+ m, extremely high damage of the sort suitable for killing bears and other large game from hundreds of meters, and of course 4 or more times faster rate of fire.

Yet many of the societies which had these excellent bows still seem to have mostly switched over to shot relatively quickly. The Ottoman Turks in particular seemed to have had extremely powerful bows, yet they were early and enthusiastic in adopting muskets. And when troops with composite bows do appear in the post-gunpowder era, they seem to perform rather poorly. For example one of Napoleon's generals had nothing but scorn for the Bashkir horse archers irregulars the Russians fielded at Leipzig .

Does this reflect the truth of things, or did composite bows still have impact on the battlefield after the musket? If composite bows were performing poorly, did it reflect some sort of decline in craftsmanship by bow makers, or in archery skill by the users? Could a much earlier bowman, a Mongol horse archer from their prime for instance, be useful against musket equipped troops?

Just watched in the 1969 film for the first time. As a side note, how incredible was it to see so many period correct aircraft still around and able to be filmed. But to my point: Hitler had a standing order to not attack London. Understandable as clearly at that point in the war, 1940, he still had a hope of negotiating a treatise with England and keep them out of the war. So no point in stirring the hornet's nest by attacking the capital city. And yet, after just a handful of bombs are, according to the movie, accidentally dropped on London, GB responds with a full on aerial bombing attack on Berlin. They had to have known that section an attack would be reciprocated on London. So my question is, what is the background behind the decision if the British to escalate the stakes by attacking capitol cities, assuming that the initial accidental bombing by Germany was perceived as being relatively minor and clearly not a strategic decision upon Hitler's part?

I recently discovered a 1 hour video of a family member telling the story of his experiences in the US Army invasion of North Africa and Sicily, 1942-1943, in which he won a silver star and was grievously wounded. The video was recorded in 1990 when he was in his seventies. I believe these stories have never been recorded anywhere else, and they are somewhat backed up by documents such as the medal award letter.

I don't really know how stories get from someone's attic into the hands of historians. Would you expect this material to have any interest to historians, or is it probably only a family memento that goes back up in the attic?

Washington was a beacon, Jefferson wrote the poetry, Hamilton wrote the prose. So many others.

But how did the USA become what it became? Who or whom came up with this experiment and how? Broad question, I lately realize.

I have some old books that sit in the bathroom. I like to flip through them from time to time while sitting there. I have an old book, A Brief History of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern People from 1883. In the section entitled Italian cities, Venice, there is the following...

"In the 14th and 15th centuries the government grew into an oppressive oligarchy, the secret Council of Ten, like the Spartan Ephores, controlling the Doge and holding the threads of life and death. The Dagger, the poisoned ring, the close gondola, the deep silent canal, the Bridge of Sighs and the secret cell beyond - all linger in the mysterious history of the time."

Are the references in the second sentence specific things? What are they referring to?