Long story short, this map, made sometime between 1750-1796, has sounding measurements and I'm trying to figure out how to interpret them. I don't see any obvious key saying what the units are, but I don't speak Dutch either. I ran the subtitle at the top through Google Translate but it doesn't seem to give any information about units. There's a thing at the bottom, (maybe a cross section?) with text but I don't know what it is or what the text means. Wikipedia tells me there were a bunch of units for length used by the Dutch at the time. Do any of you know how to figure out what units these sounding measurements might be in?
1 Answers 2019-01-30
In the modern age Hitler is the go to big bad when measuring modern leaders. Before Hitler, did a character like this exist in the general knowledge. If so, who was it?
In other words - who was the worst person before Hitler?
1 Answers 2019-01-30
If so can you please link a document or something similar. It is for a school project so gladly a historical document. Thanks in advance!
1 Answers 2019-01-30
Its hard to understand how were they able to control most of Europe for a few years with just German soldiers.
1 Answers 2019-01-30
How could germany fund its ww2 campaign debt free despite the treaty of versailles and its situation after ww1?
1 Answers 2019-01-30
"On January 30th, 1790, the Mulattoes, sponsored by the Friends of the Negro, petitioned again. ‘Protestants, comedians, Jews, the relations of criminals’, all had received their political rights from the Assembly. Yet Mulattoes were still excluded. The Assembly turned a deaf ear"
What did it mean to be a French comedian in 1790? Why is this a group that would need to be granted political or civil rights?
1 Answers 2019-01-30
Did they have the abilities to manufacture these textiles and hats that time? Also what are those little bags that are hanging from the ceiling at the villages?
2 Answers 2019-01-30
1 Answers 2019-01-30
[deleted]
1 Answers 2019-01-30
1 Answers 2019-01-30
I've noticed that in many towns which predate cars that the roads are often wide enough for at least four lanes across. At the time the City was formed there would have just been horses and wagons. How did they determine the width? Was this some sort of weird foresight? Was it to allow wagons easy passage? Or was it something else?
1 Answers 2019-01-30
1 Answers 2019-01-30
I know after Napoleon and his army won the battle of Austerlitz the Holy Roman Empire and Emperor officially were dissolved and Francis II became simply Emperor of Austria. I also know that today the crown sits in the Imperial Treasury in Vienna. But how did it get there? Did Francis just take off the crown and put on another one or did he continue to wear the crown as the Austrian Emperor? Why didn't Napoleon just take the crown for himself as a trophy?
1 Answers 2019-01-30
The armies of Napoleon and his adversaries and their battles dwarf everything that happened in the medieval and ancient periods in Europe. I know that they used conscription to have the manpower for these armies, but how could they feed them? Because army sizes of hundreds of thousands in a battle in this time periods are rejected simply because it is considered impossible to feed this many men. So what changed to allow them to do it?
1 Answers 2019-01-30
[deleted]
1 Answers 2019-01-30
Please Be Aware: We expect everyone to read the rules and guidelines of this thread. Mods will remove questions which we deem to be too involved for the theme in place here. We will remove answers which don't include a source. These removals will be without notice. Please follow the rules.
Some questions people have just don't require depth. This thread is a recurring feature intended to provide a space for those simple, straight forward questions that are otherwise unsuited for the format of the subreddit.
Here are the ground rules:
Top Level Posts should be questions in their own right.
Questions should be clear and specific in the information that they are asking for.
Questions which ask about broader concepts may be removed at the discretion of the Mod Team and redirected to post as a standalone question.
We realize that in some cases, users may pose questions that they don't realize are more complicated than they think. In these cases, we will suggest reposting as a stand-alone question.
Answers MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. Unlike regular questions in the sub where sources are only required upon request, the lack of a source will result in removal of the answer.
Academic secondary sources are prefered. Tertiary sources are acceptable if they are of academic rigor (such as a book from the 'Oxford Companion' series, or a reference work from an academic press).
The only rule being relaxed here is with regard to depth, insofar as the anticipated questions are ones which do not require it. All other rules of the subreddit are in force.
30 Answers 2019-01-30
I’m specifically looking at the British use of tanks on the Western Front throughout the war, and would like to learn more of the first hand experiences of tank crews or infantry that fought alongside them.
I have used the Imperial War Museums online collection to a good extent but a lot of their sources that look useful have a great big “Media not available online” stamp. Also worth pointing out is that I’m in the UK.
Thanks for any help!
1 Answers 2019-01-30
Prior to the Northern Crusades and Christian influence, of course.
1 Answers 2019-01-30
I understand that the Trojan War is possibly historical, but that's just an example given due to the presence of Odysseus in the Inferno.
1 Answers 2019-01-30
I came across this which has (unsourced) claims about the Bf110 in the Battle of Britain which contradict the common perception of the performance of the aircraft.
Specifically
the Bf 110 appears to have had a better ratio of shot down enemy aircraft to own combat losses than any other fighter type during the Battle of Britain.
Which sounds pretty doubtful, but is there any truth in this?
1 Answers 2019-01-30
5 Answers 2019-01-30
Recently I read Philippa Gregory's <i>Lady of the Rivers</i>, and was left confused by a plot point I'm hoping to clarify here. My question will have spoilers for the book, though I hope it will be answerable without having read it.
Basically, in the novel a foreign noblewoman becomes an English duchess through a very profitable marriage. After the death of the husband however, she marries his squire and is denounced, losing her noble status and most of her fortune (from what I could understand). In spite of this, she's still widely referred as 'Dowager Duchess' and still becomes lady-in-waiting for the queen, which I had thought was a position reserved for nobles of high standing.
So, my question is, should I have read her character as a tiny step above peasant, or rather as a peer of the realm? What were the actual consequences of 'marrying down' for a woman in the XV century?
1 Answers 2019-01-30