Say, for instance, an American B-17 crashed in a field in Germany somewhere after the crew bailed. Would the German forces investigate the crash to look for anything of value (intel, surviving crew, weakness in the aircraft)? And what would they have done after they were done with remaines of the aircraft? Would they just leave it? Break it down for scrap metal? Send it to Berlin to study?

The von Wittelsbachs held a lot of land in Germany, from the Rhine, to Holland, to the Palatinate and Bavaria, to far flung regions like Sweden and Denmark; why didn't they become the major force inside Germany, instead of the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns?

That's something I have always been wondering. Did they do the same exercises athletes do nowadays (like squats and push ups)? It's obvious that everything today is very professional, especially with the growing use of science and technology in sports. But what kind of exercises did Olympians do when nothing like that was around?

I’m currently reading Hero of the Empire by Candice Millard, a book about Winston Churchill’s participation in the Second Boer War in South Africa. After he escapes from a POW prison, he is briefly hidden by British sympathisers in the coal mine of the Transvaal and Delagoa Bay Colliery. Millard writes that the man who oversaw the mine, John Howard, had purposefully introduced albino rats into the depths.

“Churchill had not spent the night alone after all. Several years earlier, Howard had introduced into the mine a species of white rat that was, in Churchill’s words, ‘an excellent scavenger.’ The rats had thrived in the dark recesses of the mine and had quickly added to their numbers until there were now swarms of them, clever, quick and able to make a living off anything they could find, including Churchill’s candle.”

Later, he is led through the mine by two Scottish workers and the lantern light provides a better glimpse:

“Mostly what they saw were rats. Fortunately, Churchill had ‘no horror of rats’ and thought that the ones scurrying around the mines were ‘rather nice little beasts.’ He admired their sleek white fur and their dark eyes. His guides, however, assured him that if he could see the rats in natural light, he would find that their eyes were in fact bright pink. They were albinos, and so had even worse eyesight than most rats as well as a unique sensitivity to light, all of which made them, unlike Churchill, perfectly suited to life in the mine.”

Millard describes Churchill’s annoyance as the rats harass him in his sleep and steal his candles, but never mentions their actual purpose in the mines. Does anyone know why they would have been added in the first place?

This question comes out if a discussion I had last night with an Indian friend, where I was trying to explain to him the nature of the change in the concept of land ownership in the course of the transition to capitalism. I realised that I have no idea whether something like the enclosure of common grazing occured in Germany, France and Italy, or indeed, more generally how the broad narratives of the transition to agronomic profit making and land clearance are generally framed and understood in those countries.

I am thus not really asking about specific historical events (that would of course be far too broad) but how the processes tend to be seen.

Did the press/public condemn this breakdown of traditional gender roles or was it partly endorsed? Was there any reporting in the field by journalist from these countries?

Hi, I'm working on a fantasy book and trying to keep it at least somewhat realistic, hence the following situation.

Two powerful states, A and B wage war on each other. The technology level is equal for both, approximately at the level England and France had during the Battle of Agincourt (also no magic, dragons or any other supernatural stuff). A brings a standard feudal army - peasant levies and knightly cavalry. B, however, has a standing army of professional soldiers.

Would there be any differences in the composition of the fighting forces stemming from the difference in their "nature"? Would about their tactics in battle?

Thanks a lot for your input!

I've always been fascinated by the sheer audacity of British colonial power, but during school we were never really taught about events that happened in far-flung corners of the Empire.

I'd love to gain some insight into some of the wildest and more eccentric parts of the British Empire. So much of what we consider to be the "British character" seems to have been defined during this period, but very few of the personalities are actually very well-known.

A lot of the stories that do survive tend to glorify Britain, which isn't what I'm looking for. I'd like something that gives a fairly level-headed look into the conflicts the Brits had with indigenous people within the territories they claimed.

Any recommendations to get me started would be greatly appreciated.

Living in Turkey all my life, I couldn't help but notice how Turks treated animals so well contrary to the general Muslim-majority countries. Local butchers save bad parts of the meat to feed strays, villagers commonly owning pets, and most people petting animals normally considered "dirty" by Islam is odd seeing how the Ottoman Empire was governed religiously.

Is it true that tomb plunderers and archeologist came across working traps in Egyptian ruins?

[deleted]