To clarify, I'm really looking for criticisms of this ancient idea of animals (or humans!) actually producing characteristically different offspring based on what they were visually looking at while they bred — not just criticism of the broader theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Thanks!

[Edit:] I've found one explicit criticism of this by Immanuel Kant of all people, at the end of the 18th century.

By "royal line" I don't mean entirely patrilineal, I mean were they relatives.

I spent the last summer in Ghana, and while there I noticed how much of the food is made with New World imports. Food must have been quite different before the Columbian Exchange.

Some examples:

Peanuts (also called groundnuts) are the main source of protein.

Maize is the base starch in much of the food.

Hot peppers are used to spice everything.

Tomatoes go in every dish, most famously, Jollof rice.

I was wondering after 1917 revolution (or coup whatever you want to call it), Russia was renamed to USSR (Soviet Union). Here Soviet actually means 'Council' in Russian. Usually, names of places have some unique history to it and that's how people relate to it. Mostly all countries have names which are truly unique to them and that allows them to differentiate themselves with other.

But by choosing a generic non-historical name like the Soviet Union, Was it done intentionally to incorporate more countries into the union easily so that the newly joined people don't feel alienated when they become part of USSR?

Also I believe the meeting had/has a specific name which I can't find, and any other resources (or a summary) regarding arguments used to support one side over the other would be greatly appreciated. Lastly were there significant geographical differences at the time in peoples who preferred one interpretation over the other? Thanks!

Most of her works have not been discovered. She might have written poems about men and women. That is not to say she was not into women, but there is no proof I have seen.

​

She wrote decent poems anyway.

Hi, I would not mind if you can forward me to a previous post that has asked this.

​

I will be explaining my post but before that let me preface this. I am a student in the accounting field. I just took a Canadian History course this term because of some synergistic reasons that I will not get into. I am a frustrated person when it comes to writing. It is a two-sided issue. First, I love sharing my insights and stuff and writing it. Second, and the reason why I hate writing is that when I submit my paper I am super confident and happy that I got to share my thoughts with my creative writing/history prof, but then my paper comes back with red marks saying I totally missed the point. It breaks my heart.

​

Now that is over with, I am asking this because as we all know Reddit posts is not exactly something you should cite in your papers as it is not a credible scholarly article. I do concur with the fact that there is very in-depth and accurate regurgitated information with citations on some posts. My question is how do I go on about playing these regurgitated and condensed information that has been posted. Should I bypass the post and just go to the citation and read the sources (I feel this is disingenuous to the OP and could constitute plagiarism)? My problem with this solution is I most often than not come with the same conclusion as the posts here so I think I should give them credit.

​

note: I know I should do my own papers, but I did that in the past and always got bad marks. I read some information here and I always think that could've been a good part of my previous paper. Also, I am not looking into actively getting others to do my assignment/paper I am talking about information posted here and looking at the direction they are going towards and finding my own interpretations.

​

tl;dr: Can I cite use the information given here and if yes how do I cite them.

I’ve been reading Eric Hobsbawm’s book “Age of Revolution” - which I would highly recommend to anyone! Although I’m resigned to the fact I’ll probably have to reread most of the book to fully grasp the concepts with I’ve got some questions that I hope someone will be able to answer:

1. It seems that prior to the French Revolution the rural poor / peasants across continental Europe were extraordinarily passive - I’m still unclear as to why this was and why this changed (in France in 1789).
2. There were three phases to the revolutions in Europe between 1815 and 1851, the first was in the 20s, second in the 30s and final in 1848. How did revolutions across such a wide geographical area coincide so well? For example between Greece, Spain and Latin America in the 20s or the industrialised UK and the rural frontier of the US in the 30s.
3. Does anyone have any recommendations for any supplementary reading for Hobsbawm’s books or books on the same period/subject the would recommend?

I’m sure these questions are answered in the book but I’ve just missed it - sorry if so.

Perhaps this knowledge will help us understand how we can ask the moderators questions here regarding subreddit rules without the post being deleted.

Anyone know how people hundreds of years ago were able to inquire on something they participated in with a group discussion, when not allowed to ask?

Although I enjoy looking at statistics and characteristics on my own relating to this subject, I'm never quite sure who to believe. Some sources say that T-80BVs and such were on par with, if not superior to, say, the M1 Abrams, but others say that Soviet tanks were utter garbage. Which side of this is the truth? Is it somewhere in the middle?

In the "Metro" series of novels by Dmitry Glukhovsky, the vast majority of human survivors of a nuclear apocalypse take shelter in the Moscow metro tunnels. Was this kind of measure ever floated either in the US or USSR as a credible method of surviving a nuclear strike?

Did the public not blame the greater Republican Party for Nixon? Was Reagan and his wing of the party able to distance themselves enough from Nixon? Or was Jimmy Carter that ineffective of a president?

Hi. I am interested in the life of the crew in the age of exploration. Search results, i know what they ate, where they slept, what possessions they had, what they did, but they do not know how much they got wage.

I would like to know the average wages of (hired) captain , first mate, second mate, boatswain, carpenters, navy, skilled crew, normal crew and etc.

I understand that crews received wages at the end of the voyage, and others have received week wages or month wages.

Of course, I understand that there will be a change in wages depending on the situation of the country and the times...

I am satisfied with the approximate information.

I have been reading about the fall of Rome and from my understanding monetary policy was actually quite good after the reign of Diocletian but the other policy put in place by Diocletian were quite draconian and strangled to economy and this only grew as the empire requires more taxes from less people as it collapsed. Is this a reasonable understanding?

I can't find the exact figure but Captain Ross route was something like four months, 1,800 miles (2,900 kilometers) on foot while also pulling very heavy loads and in some cases with barely any food.

By training I mean physical exercise like I would expect marching, and hiking before the voyage, calisthenics during the voyage and practice marches to take place before any major outing on the ice. But other than casual football games I haven't read much about any regimented/organised exercise sessions.

Hi, i want to make some acurate painting, but dont know much about historical facts. I need some kind of spear/pike/poleaxe or halberd, which was used in late medieval-renesance time by commoners->not experienced warriors, who dont have been thrue big training. It dont have to be specialized for big battles, but more for smaller brawls or 1vs1or2, something like for bridge guardian. Oponents will NOT have plate armor, so i dont need something specialized for plate breaking. Thanks for answers.

I'm interested in hearing which historical issues are most controversial/debated anno 2019. Thanks in advance.

In 1915 France and Britain tried to force the Dardanelles. Why did Russia not use its Black Sea fleet to attack the Bosphorus at the same time? Surely a two-pronged assault would have been seen as the most effective way to break Turkish resistance?