From what I understand there was a limited supply of enriched uranium/ weapons grade fissile material. So, in a situation where the number of bombs developed may be limited, why didn't they just go ahead and drop it?

Also I've heard there is some doubt on the chain linking the dynasties of the Fatamids the assassins and now any truth to that?

Ok I know a lot of cities weren't surrounded by vast, fertile plains, but for those that were, why didn't they fortify their food source, they could survive a siege for much longer if not indefinetly. I would assume buiding walls was very expensive but were there any cities that could afford it but didn't do it and why?

I see a lot of things where it’ll say someone like a 12th century monk will wrote a historical text about something that happened during like Alfred the Great’s time. I don’t understand why we’re supposed to trust what they say, even though they couldn’t possibly have witnessed it. Am I missing something?

When artists in the Middle Ages or Renaissance or the Early Modern Era or even 19th century made drawings, paintings, sculptures, busts, or whatnot of people from centuries before, or even from like in Classical Antiquity, did they usually try to find primary source or firsthand descriptions and writings of the person (or even older representations, if available) to be more accurate? Or was it often completely arbitrary and they just came up with their own idealized depiction of what that person would have looked like, in some fanciful way? It's true in the height of the Greco-Roman world there were many actual busts of people from the era or at least nearby in time, but as the Dark Ages commenced this almost disappeared. Yet there are all these romanticized depictions of barbarian kings like Charlemagne, Clovis, the various Visigothic or Anglo-Saxon kings, Attila, etc.

​

I also noticed until the last few centuries, especially in the Middle Ages or Renaissance there was a tendency to anachronistically depict ancient people with the dress and armor of the day the artists lived, as if they no longer knew what they actually wore originally.

Obviously, I know there are tons of different cultures and groups to look at either in North America or South, but I'm wondering if there are any sources on how some groups taught kids/young adults just about life, culture, space, math, etc. etc.

Anything from schoolhouses to homeschooling, stuff like that. I'm really curious about this and Google searching just gives me a lot of stuff on how the United States tried to Americanize American-Indians, rather than how the American-Indians taught themselves.

Thanks for your help!

I have read that these two British historians are considered two titans of modern historiography, but I want to understand more about why. I am curious about the details of each of their respective theories of history, especially where they disagree. Also, what is their theory of history when compared to non-British Historians like Jacob Burckhardt, or Emile Durkheim? Additionally, which prominent historiographers have come after them, and where do their (Carr and Collingwood's) theories stand in light of Foucault and Derrida?

I figure you might actually stand a chance, even go on fighting... Any historical sources on this? Thanks

Like why did we choose dogs and cats to be pets and horses to be work animals and decide we were gonna hunt everything else? Why not domesticate animals like lions and bears, animals that have power and would be much better for work and protection.

[deleted]

Machine politics in 1860s-1920s typically consisted of Democrats trying to win loyalty from immigrants (esp. the Irish Catholics) coming into the cities. Did any immigrant populations vote or align themselves with Republicans during this time?

And if not when did the masses decide to follow this system. Just a wierd thought that I happen to think of

Re-did topic title realizing how bad it sounded.

[deleted]

Things like pseudohistorical Afrocentrism that arose as a response to Eurocentric denials of African history, Native American assertion that they have always been in the Americas and did not migrate from Siberia, etc. How does a historian address something like that, without merely shutting down a voice raised against past injustice?

I am currently trying to read more and learn more about WWI but I’m unsure where to start. I’m very familiar with WWII but am I bit lost when it comes to WWI. Does anyone have any suggestions of books that give a good starting overview of WWI? Or any online resources?

I’ve heard that Vikings took psychedelic mushrooms before going into battle and wonder if there’s truth to that! And if they did, why? And we’re there other instances of country’s armies taking other mind altering drugs before battle?

Taylor is writing here of the expected nature of the war to come, the expectation that cities would be laid waste within the first weeks and comparing it to the actual results. Bomber Harris is a controversial figure and many downplay the effectiveness of his bombing campaign, claiming the resources could have been better used elsewhere, despite his being lauded as a hero by successive UK governments.

​

Where does the truth lie?