I keep hearing these claims thrown around, and refuted, and then the refutations refuted, etc. etc. I wanted to get a good, objective answer on this because I'm genuinely curious.

Is it true that Hitler was a vegetarian and if it is, then how he came to be one?

I am particularly interested in any information on women’s fashion in the West, in the second half of the 18th century. Very specific, I know, but I can’t find anything on it!

What did state-driven anthropology in the Soviet Union look like? Was there a unique ministerial office or was it handled through the universities? Did this change over time?

How was anthropology used to structure the administrative and political organization of Soviet-controlled Central Asia? How does modern historiography view this anthropology?

I keep on seeing arguments for and against Rommel's brilliance. I'm currently reading "How Hitler could have won WWII" by Bevin Alexander and he keeps talking about how Rommel kept overrunning the Brits and even destroying significant forces while at it. He also states that Rommel had very little logistical support from home and about half of his units where underequiped Italian divisions. He knew to focus his forces at a decisive point while the Brits spread their tanks out. All this points towards next level tactical acumen. He was basically continuously routing a superior enemy. I'd really like to know why some people consider him overrated.

Since an early age I've loved history as a hobby, playing historical games (AoE), watching documentaries and reading historical books in my free time. But I've never really thought of it as a career. When it came to what to study in university, I went with an IT field (Software Engineering) since it seemed safer and more in demand. But now that I'm done with my bachelors and starting my first job I feel like this really isn't for me, and I've been seriously thinking about doing a masters degree or something similar in a field I'm more interested in, that I feel passionate about. The first thing that popped in my mind was History.

So I wanted to ask this to you Historians out there:

• What are the usual career paths for a historian?
• What does someone with a history degree usually do?
• Can someone become a somewhat decently respected Historian without a history degree, through lesser singular courses/ his own personal research perhaps?

Any other general tips regarding the topic would be welcomed as well.

This question was inspired by a trip that I had to transport a tuxedo with me.

How was chain mail historically packed for transport? Was it generally just thrown into a bag? Put in crates with straw? Oiled up and rolled up like a sleeping bag? Historically, what methods were used to move these heavy, metal armors outside of just wearing it? What precautions would have been taken to protect from rust and damage?

[deleted]

Also, how was it viewed by mainstream society and where there any other historical counterparts?

I heard that there was a noticeable decrease in publications in the field after his untimely death, but I don't know enough to judge his full impact.

The New King James Bible is the standard (most commonly used) bible for English speaking people (Americans), but it has gone through multiple translations mostly to suit new beliefs and (or) use of language. Christians today can't wholly agree on which bible is doctrine as there are several translations in use. It can be difficult to translate word for word from one modern language to another due to changes in grammar and meaning, and shifts in nuance for individual words. I assume it can be even more difficult to translate foreign languages of the past due to the same problems compounded by the loss of first hand speakers for clarity. How accurate are modern bibles like the New King James Version to the original aramaic? What is known to be lost in translation that is often misinterpreted today? Are there any passages that are thought or known to be deleted from or added to today's translations?

Edit: altered two phrases to appease disgruntled commentors.

Also, to settle the translation, interpretation debate. Translation: definition 1.1 according to the Oxford Dictionary. "A written or spoken rendering of the meaning of a word or text in another language."

Translation assumes interpretation. They are synonymous in this question. "Ich bin ein Berliner" translates to both "I am a citizen of Berlin" and "I am a Jelly Donut". Accurate translation requires accurate interpretation.

I've seen studies and surveys that claim anywhere from 31-55% of Christians read the New King James Version. In all cases the NKJV is the most commonly read, therefore my inaccurate "standard" claim. I can find no studies done that have a global investigation of English speakers. Bible scholars prefer the New Revised Standard Version. Perhaps someone will include that disconnect in their answer.

After some google searches, I can’t find any articles that give a sort of helpful elucidation on the subject, only a few bloggers with short speculative answers.

Is there more to the Tennessee City than just being founded by a river?

As far as I know, until the late Middle Ages/early Renaissance, kings were expected to lead troops into battle or at least be present for major battles. Notably during the Hundred Years’ War, rulers still took the risk of being wounded or captured.

​

When did it become acceptable to completely “outsource” military command, and where any official justifications provided at the time?

​

EDIT: Thank you all for your answers. The time frame I was looking for was mostly post-medieval Europe. I was curious if there would have been some kind of backlash or criticism when rulers (in fit fighting condition) stopped showing up to command but I guess public image was not so much of a concern at the time. From what I understand, with the emergence of full-time armies, full-time military commanders would have replaced kings and high nobility on the battlefield and this transition happened progressively.

In his 1930 essay “Economic possibilities for our grandchildren”, Keynes predicted that the productivity gains, the economic growth and ongoing automatization would translate into more leisure time and less work for everybody. By 2030, he said, 15 hours of work per week would suffice. It made a lot of sense from his perspective, as past experiences proved just that – for example, as Henry Ford multiplied productivity by introducing the assembly line and mass production, he could afford the introduce the 40-hour workweek. The wealth of the US and the western world has multiplied over the last decades. So how come that this did not translate into fewer working hours? What was it that Keynes didn’t take into account?

I've heard that the source behind German children tales such as Hansel and Gretel with the motif of children stranded in the forest is a great famine in the 14th century leading to many parents abandoning their children in the forest. Is there any truth in this claim?

I remember in elementary school being told that a drummer would be used to give orders to soldiers from the general in charge of a battle, which seems a bit hard to believe because it would be nearly impossible to hear a drum from far away. If that’s not how a commander delivered orders, how would they do it!

Children of black women who were fathered by white men were slaves, and generally, no one publicly acknowledged their white parentage. Just as it is known that white men during that period frequently and regularly raped their female slaves, I can’t help but think that there must have been at least some sexual contact between the enslaved men and white women as well, both consensual and non, and this probably resulted in some children. Given that the white parentage of a mixed race child born to a white mother would be impossible to deny or ignore, what would happen to that child?

During the period of British rule in India, British monarchs were designated as the King/Queen of most of the nations in the British Empire, but for India, they were designated as Emperor or Empress. Why did they have such a special title for ruling over India?

Asked this a while ago. It got lots of up votes, but no answers. Thus, I ask again.