My understanding is that the 3 Illustrious class carriers had Corsairs but smaller hangers forced these 3 to carry something else but why did only Indomitable get the Hellcat while her two cousins w/ the same hanger restrictions carry Seafires? Did the RN prefer Hellcats but only have enough for a single carrier or did it prefer the Seafire but not have enough for all 3 carriers or was it something else entirely?

Hi

I have been researching 2 specific steam engines built in 1911 in the UK (as a pair), and I am trying to trace what happened to them.

Strange hobby, I know ha.

I have been on quite a journey of information; and I finally know who the customer was... But his name and company/organization appear to be a dead end.

The engines were exported from the UK to Turkey on completion.

On the sales records, the customers name was "Louis Draghi", which is unexpectedly of Italian origin.

His organization was "Syndicat Agricole Adana" which translates (unexpectedly from French) to "agricultural union Adana". And this was based in Adana, Turkey.

I was very happy to discover his and his organizations name, but short lived as now I am stuck at a seemingly dead end. None of my efforts on Google, whether Google UK, Google France or Google Turkey return any results for this "Syndicat Agricole Adana" in or out of combination with "Louis Draghi".

This is a relatively common Italian name so I have found various others with the same name but can't anything about this guy or organization I am looking for.

If anyone knows anything or can point me in the right direction I would really appreciate it!

Thanks a lot

Hello there! I had a question about the Pre World War One Royal Navy. I remember hearing somewhere that officers were promoted to Captain based on how clean and tidy their ships looked. This led to a lack of gunnery training (since firing the guns dirtied the ship) and meant that British gun crews were abysmal shots. Because of this, the Royal Navy emphasized rate of fire, which led to unsafe shell storage, which contributed to British battlecruisers exploding at Jutland.

It's a great story, but how much if any of it is true?

I'd also love any book or article recommendations on the subject. Thanks for your help!

Why did late WW2 American tank projects, such as the Pershing prototypes/modifications (e.g. the T25E1, T26E1 and E3, the T29E1, etc. etc.) have an "E" instead of the "A" which the military would later use in the future (such as the M60A1)? Did the "E" stand for anything? Was it an abbreviation? Why did they switch from it?

I've always read that there was no currency in Ancient Egypt and it was a barter-based society. I don't doubt it was but I still find it odd that such an advanced society didn't develop or felt the need to use money. Can someone shed some light on this?

The US has 220,480 km of rail lines, but it once had 408,833 km.

Many of those old lines are abandoned, or have been turned into rails-to-trails, etc.

When the US build them, was there a legitimate need for them, or were people overbuilding rail lines in a speculative fashion because of a rail investment bubble? Were these lines being abandoned even before the automobile because there wasn't enough demand for them?

How big of a role did the subsequent introduction of the automobile play in their abandonment?

You often see people describe Jesus as "an obscure Judaean rabbi" or something along those lines, especially if they try to give a more historical accounting of his life. But like... he doesn't really sound much like a rabbi when you read the gospels? Sure he clearly has strong opinions on religion and does seem somewhat knowledgeable in biblical literature (at least if we believe the gospels to accurately transmit what he said.) But I can go to synagogue right now and find ten other people who fit that bill without being rabbis. He never seems to go through training to be one and he disagrees a lot with the pharisees who are the precursors to modern judaisms rabbis.

So like, is there any historic reason that he keeps being called that? Did the word mean something very different back then, which is why some historians use it? Or is it just people assuming rabbi = a Jewish guy who knows a lot about religion?

If i remember correctly he just upgraded a previous existent machine and used it against "Enigma". If it's like this, who invented the first machine and how was it called? Google says Turing invented it, is it true?

Hello friends.

My question is what it says in the title. Every single time I try to research what tribes were in what areas, every single map shows me different information, and I'm assuming it's because in different time periods different tribes occupied those areas.

I'm also trying to find what differentiated the tribes: was it the clothing, worship, language, etc. Would love to also see art and/or representation of what they would wear, worship, etc. differently from each other.

Finally, I'm also looking for the time periods of these maps, in order to compare to what other cultures and tribes were around during those times.

Keep in mind I'm not an actual historian, I'm just trying to research this for my own spare time as it's a culture that very much intrigues me. So if there's a website that already has all of this information compiled, I haven't heard about it.

Thanks in advance for all the answers, and God bless you all!

I know Socrates, in the dialogues, is pretty old. But I don't know how old the other yet get to be in the long run of things. How old are they during the dialogues, and how old afterward? How old was Plato during the time that Aristotle was writing?

Thank you

I've noticed that it is inevitable to strike a controversy whenever a historical figure's nationality is brought up for debate (like whether William Shakespeare's is French for instance)

I'm not looking for answers like "NO HE WAS ENGLISH", rather, I would like to understand how one would've thought about his identity in the time before the French revolution and the nationalist movement.

If there's some way to describe and understand this, would this also apply to some other historical figures like "Ibn Khaldun"? who were born in islamic cities, traveled, lived, and died in others? How did they think about those different cities? Did they feel similar to how an American might feel due to moving from California to New York for example? or is it more severe?

Maybe I don't have enough information or historical context to ask the right questions, but I would like to know how identity was like without taking into consideration the new idea of nationalism, because I think it doesn't apply to those historical periods.

What was the importance of Operation Gunnerside in Norway, and did it prevent the development of nuclear weapons or dangerous bombs that could have altered the result of World War 2? How far were the nazis to actually to develop these bombs?

Like, I understand how "queer" became a slur due to homophobia, but I still don't understand how gay came to mean what it does today

Winston Churchill was "First Lord of the Admiralty" from 1911 until his famous blunder at Galipoli in 1915.

But as a German, I don't quite understand what that post entitled. It was supposedly a post akin to a "Minister of the Navy"? But why would there be an entire ministry and minister dedicated only to the navy? Usually countries only have a single Minister of War/Defence who heads the entire military, not just a part of it.

Now Britain did have an extremely large fleet and said fleet was vital in securing its survival, so emphasising that importance by making that its own ministry does make some sense.

But what extra capabilities were gained by making the navy its own ministry, which could not have worked as well as if it had been under a single "Minister of Defence"?

And has there ever been such an equivalent in other countries, or an equivalent solely for the air force?

And why was this post abandoned in 1964 in favour of a single "Minister of Defence"?

It is a common argument on the internet that had Germany just continued bombing the British military aircraft industry and radars instead of redirecting the strategic bombing focus to terror bombing, that they would have won the air war over Britain. This subsequently would have supposedly allowed a Nazi invasion of the British Isles, as they now could have used paratroopers to secure strategic points as well as use bombers without hindrance to bomb the British fleet should they approach the German naval landing forces.

But I have read counter arguments that Operation Sealion still would have never been successful, even with the British airforce mostly gone.

The first argument is that it is not clear that Germany could have won the air war, even if it had stayed focused on military targets during bombing raids.

Furthermore the argument goes that even if they had destroyed the British airforce, that still did not mean that they could now just send the British fleet to the bottom of the English Channel. Germany had no real purpose-built naval bombers - it mostly used the He-111 and Ju-87 to do naval bombing, both which were not built for this purpose - and even if they had them, they still lacked the doctrinal experience to use them effectively. And even if all this had been true, Britain would have likely just staged a somewhat suicidal attack against the German invasion force and done enough damage to it that any further invasion of the British isles was impossible.

Last but not least even if they had managed to land a sizable force on the British Isles without it being sunk by the British airforce or fleet, their supply lines still would have been extremely vulnerable to British harassment attacks against German shipping. So Britain would still have been able to starve out the German forces over time.

Do note that I am merely talking about a successful "Operation Sealion" here. I have no doubt that Germany absolutely would have attempted it, had they had the chance to do so.

It is also no doubt to me that the British genuinely feared a German invasion of their Isles until at least 1941.

I finished this book not too long ago, and I was interested in the daily lives of the monks in a 14th century abbey. Does anyone know if there's any primary sources of that nature that have survived? Or any secondary sources that you could suggest? Also, I would be interested in reading more about the poverty dispute between Pope John XXII and the Franciscans. Thank you.

Quoted section:

Of course, in the European Middle Ages, when economic matters fell under the jurisdiction of church law, no one really pretended these questions were not theological. Still, that period introduced a further element, not explicitly theological, the importance of which for later conceptions of labor can hardly be overstated. This is the notion of “service.” It is very much a Northern European idea.

In theory, feudal society was a vast system of service: not only serfs but also lower-ranking feudal lords “served” higher ones, just as higher ones provided feudal service to the king. However, the form of service that had the most important and pervasive in􀐜uence on most people’s lives was not feudal service but what historical sociologists have called “life-cycle” service. Essentially, almost everyone was expected to spend roughly the first seven to fifteen years of his or her working life as a servant in someone else’s household. Most of us are familiar with how this worked itself out within craft guilds, where teenagers would first be assigned to master craftsmen as apprentices, and then become journeymen, but only when they achieved the status of master craftsmen would they have the means to marry and set up their own households and shops, and take apprentices of their own. In fact, the system was in no sense limited to artisans. Even peasants normally expected to spend their teenage years onward as “servants in husbandry” in another farm household, typically, that of someone just slightly better off. Service was expected equally of girls and boys (that’s what milkmaids were: daughters of peasants during their years of service), and was usually expected even of the elite.

I have recently learned from my Grandpa that his father, my Great Grandfather, served in the US Army and that he was a part of the Punitive Expedition. I would like to learn more about his involvement but my Grandpa only knows a few things, and I am not interested in spending hours looking through records or giving my card info to those sketchy websites. Therefore, I figure I could ask a historian a pretty general question that would help me, and anyone else with the same query that comes across this post: Which units served in the Del Rio area during the Punitive Expedition, and what was their purpose?

Also a bit more context if it helps: my Great Grandpa was born in 1896, he enlisted in 1914, served under General Pershing, he was a ‘sharpshooter’ in Del Rio, he did not serve in WW1, and he suffered minor injuries. All other information is unknown.

If you have the ability to find some personal information about him (i.e. rank upon discharge, type of discharge, any awards, MOS, e.t.c.), then please pm me.

The sub rules about sources are pretty rigid it seems. If you have an answer to my question but don’t have a source, just pm me.

Thank you