As in, freeing slaves would impact the south heavily since all the forced labor would suddenly disappear. Did the north try to compensate the south since money loss would be severe? Did they offer any workforce to make up for the loss of revenue that would happen?

In battles like Waterloo where men marched and fired in the open, it seems like being in the very front of the battle during the first volleys was unsurvivable. There was no cover, no trying to “dodge” the enemy’s fire, you were just expected to stand there and take it. If you’re in one of the rows further back in a column you have the protection of the men in front of you to soak up volleys, but if you’re in the front it just seems like you have to pray that the volleys miss you in particular for some reason. Am I wrong? And if being in the front line was especially dangerous, how could officers convince men to stay in formation?

Thanks also I’m on mobile

If you are not familiar with the game War Thunder, it is a 'realistic' battle simulator for tanks, planes and boats.

The boat mode involves destroyers throwing shells at each other from 8km out hoping to land good hits. With a little bit of practice, you can accurately place your shots after a few tracer shots.

My question is, were Warships in Wold War 2 accurate, allowing to precisely target ship components, or was it a case of throwing enough shells hoping one gets lucky?

Im not trying to make this political. But I've heard from some certain people on the opposite side that rome collapsed because of multiculturalism? Was multiculturalism the fall of rome? Thank you in advance

I'm fascinated by prehistory, especially the origins of us. But there are huge gaps in my understanding.

Mesopotamia seems to start around 5000 BCE, and seems to be the cradle of humanity. But there's a 11,000BCE footprint found in North America. And Indigenous Australian peoples date back by a factor of 10 or more! (50,000BCE to 70,000 BCE).

Is there any record of people in this 45-65,000 year gap? There were people, I assume, but what, if anything do we know about them? What was happening on the rest of the planet in this time?

BONUS - any suggested reading would be very deeply appreciated.

I have been reading about Romanov pretenders following their execution. While doing this I have found Larissa Tudor, who was believed to possibly be Tatiana due to a close physical resemblance, discrepancies in Tudor's documents, the huge amount of money she left her husband on her death as well as rumours of Tatiana's escape. Although this has been disproved conclusively by DNA testing that still leaves the question, who was Larissa Tudor?

I would really appreciate if anyone could recommend books that delve into the life of these people in the 19/18th century.

I have been doing genealogy research on my ancestors from Sicily and Central Italy. Now I've obtained many of their birth and death documents from Italy where they are typically listed as "country men." I have to assume they were peasants. But now that I have assembled factual information about their life events I would like to get a sense of how they lived.

If there is anything specific to their home cities that would be amazing too. In Sicily, they lived in a small town of Marineo which is near the major city of Palermo which I am lead to believe they visited occasionally. Thanks!

​

​

I’m writing a paper regarding drug use and alcoholism during the Renaissance period, but I’m lacking information regarding opium “addiction” . I’ve found plenty of info regarding opium usage and pills, but I can’t find any info on the so called “epidemic” of opium use (that’s what my teacher called it) . Thanks for your time and any help.

Recently i bought a ring from a polish ebay seller (link will be in the comments). It contains the Armia Krajowa logo and some nice detailing on the sides. I haven't received it yet so i can't check the quality of it, but i did a little research and can't find anything like this. It looks like a home-made piece. Were things like this common within the Armia Krajowa? Or is it more a post-war thing? Thanks in advance!

Hi, at start i want to declare that i dont havemuch knowledge about history so please dont be ofended by my mistakes. Im wondering how much benefitial was really full plate armor in smaller combats and 1v1, when they didnt have horses. Isn't then better just some partial armor for better agility and endurace? Have a nice new year. Sorry for my english.

Maybe this is not a history but an anthropology question. Of course not every single native American society was egalitarian between the sexes, but there were many in North America where women played a much bigger part in labor, politics, religion, and even enjoyed powerful leadership roles. What allowed these conditions to appear in North America while women were socially subordinate to men in Europe, for example?

[deleted]

Apologies for my ignorance, but as somebody educated in the UK, my knowledge of black rights in America is quite limited, and I was curious for some more information on the matter.

I've heard things such as white GI's stationed in Britain during WW2 were horrified that pub landlords would refuse to segregate pubs. I've heard of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, the Civil Rights Movement and segregation, but my question is, how did things come to be this way?

Obviously, there was this big war fought over the rights of slaves in the US, and Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves, so how did segregation come to be? Was that also part of the Emancipation Proclamation; slaves are free but have no rights? Was it gradually introduced over the intervening 100 years? Was Lincoln perhaps not as benevolent as I'm led to believe? I'm guessing former cecessionist states were less receptive to black people for a while, but what was it like on a Federal level?

I guess, in a less rambling way my question is, how did US society go from fighting the civil war to free the slaves, to making them second class citizens and segregating them from the white population?

My wife and I were watching Die Hard last week and I began seeing connections and meaning in the plot elements from the second act of the movie that I had not picked up before. For those who have not seen it, the movie follows a New York cop trapped in a LA skyscraper on Christmas Eve facing down highly sophisticated terrorist hostage-takers turned thieves. In the second act the police and eventually the FBI get involved and the film seems to go out of it's way to mock the apparently standard procedures used by law enforcement during the siege that ensues.

​

First the LA SWAT team is rebuffed, but only after showing one of the officers snag a finger on a thorn while walking through a bush, derisively juxtaposing the officer's apparent hardcore role on the SWAT team to his concern for a minor irritation. From there police operations escalate, leading to an exploded APC and the FBI overriding local government to cut power to a dozen city blocks, ultimately enabling the antagonist's plan to open an electromagnetically locked safe. All the while police leadership is shown as incompetent, arrogant, and contemptuous of the protagonist's actions to successfully contain the hostage-takers. The police response culminates with the FBI calling in helicopter gunships to attack the terrorists in a vain attempt to crush the opposition.

​

The writers and director of Die Hard obviously used these plot elements to heighten the opposition facing the hero of the movie; after all, he wouldn't be much of a hero if he could be rescued by an effective police response. However, I couldn't help thinking about the similarities between these plot elements and the infamous law enforcement embarrassments of Ruby Ridge and the Waco siege: incompetent leadership, underestimated opposition, and a disastrous final assault. I initially thought those specific plot points weren't quite 'ripped from the headlines' but at least inspired by those events, but Die Hard was released in 1988 while Ruby Ridge and Waco didn't occur until 1992 and 1993.

​

My question then is if these similarities were just coincidence or were there larger undercurrents of anti-Federal/anti-centralization feeling swirling before 1992 that the screenwriters tapped into?