While watching the film it struck me how immature and childish a lot of the party officials could be. Not just their sense of umour, but their squabbling and their one-upmanship. How accurate are these portrayals to real life? Was Khrushchev really such a silly character that he came to the injured Stalin in his pyjamas? Was Georgy Malenkov really so weak and ineffectual? And was Zhukov really foul-mouthed and bombastic? I'm sure there has been some exaggeration for comic effect but I'd love to know to what degree these men were as the film portrays them.

Was it covered up and only revealed decades later, or was it known soon after it happened?

[deleted]

And if there a multiple, it'd be great if you could compile names :D

Hi AskHistorians, I searched for this question and found it had been asked once, but with no answers. Hopeful someone can clarify the Viking view of men crying. Thanks for your time.

I might have a misunderstanding of the timeline, but it seems like almost as soon as the spanish arrived there were translators there. How did these translators learn spanish so quickly? who taught them?

With all that armour, and a shield it seems rather difficult to take a knight down. How would it have been done? What is the most effective way to defeat a knight in battle?

Why and when did people start saying bless you (or something like it) after someone sneezes?

I know very little about Republican Spanish governance except that they may have killed a few catholic priests. What exactly did they do and why do socialists always use it as their one example? Is this a result of its relatively short and uninteresting existence or is there actually some merit to this claim?

What about in 1850, 1800, or 1750?

​

My friend collects old banknotes, and he sent me scanned 1917 Russian 1000 rubles banknote, that has swastika on the center anticlockwise. I know that the symbol is very old and was used in ancient Persia, India and etc. Just curious why it is there and what does it mean? I could show the scanned image, but can't post images on this sub. Link in the comments:

There was a post on Historyporn that was locked so I couldn't ask it there. I'm curious to how the IRA received funding. I'd imagine they were considered a terrorist group by most of the world so how did they receive such an arsenal of weapons and funding to keep going for so long? I don't see their regional fight to be of any interest to the Soviets.

In some of the naval history i have been reading recently one of the arguments i am encountering seems really interesting but a bit too simple. The argument is basically that the Hapsburg empire was unable to create ventures similar to Dutch and English East India Companies and West India Company due to their own structural or dogmatic reasons. And this in part explains how their enemies (the Dutch in particular) are able to out maneuver them stratgeically and globally towards the end of the 80 years war and the rest of the 17th century. Now that is interesting but is often written in a way that i doubt the authors knowledge of Hapsburg politics and economics. Its too neat.

Is this something that is likely a) they failed to create a stakeholder imperial venture. B) that it was a disadvantage not to.?

I would like to apologize in advance if this seems like a stupid question as im a big greenie regarding history.

So when guns rolled around from what I know armour became obselete and was instead substituted for just casual clothes (for example english red coats, american civil war clothes), fights were now a battle of guns and swordfights (might be wrong please correct if true).

What I never see in movies/tv shows or general that era history sources is the use of bows/crossbows.

From what I get bows were not that great at dealing with big ol dudes wearing plates of metal, but when guns were introduced and shields/armour went poof would it not make sense to start utilising bows again?

In my opinion an arrow would do alot more damage to a person wearing no protection from it then a gumball of steel that could go straight through you.

I googled how many shots a skilled musketeer could fire every minute and it was around 3. I feel like if you had a 3-5 person thick line peppering down the oposing firing line (that was standing still probably reloading) with arrows it would of been much more effective and cheaper to dispose of them.

When semi auto and fully auto guns were introduced, yes it would be stupid to try and counter them with arrows. But I still think it would of been a good idea to atleast have a supporting line of archers behind your musketeers.

Again feel free to correct any mistakes I have made.