Essentially I and a friend got into an argument last night, because he enjoys flying a rebel flag off the back of his truck. Finally I snapped and decided to try and convey how backward it was to call it “his history” when his family has lived in Ohio for generations. I know we’ve had multiple presidents that were generals, and a huge amount of our population fought for the Union. His argument was that “History is wrote by the winners, youll never see how much Ohio contributed to the confederacy because theyve hidden it to make it sound like we won, Custer was from Ohio.

Can someone help me find just how much the state contributed to both sides? Manpower, monetary, anything?

Thank you (if this breaks the rules as soapboxing i apologize just felt like the context was useful)

After operation overlord and Neptune and the retaking of France was the maginot line ever re-used as support to the allies as they headed for Germany?

For years the internet has taken John Clements belief that edge to edge parrying and blocking is BS because it damages the sword and its better to block with the flat of the sword because the sword gets damaged. Frequently pointed out is how Japanese styles use flat blocks rather than edge to edge blocking.

Now I know in recent years swordsmen, historians, and HEMAists such as Matt Easton are now calling BS on John Clement's claims because not only is there historical evidence of edge to edge defenses to the point even older schools of Japanese swordsmanship have texts showing it, but also because thesword will get damaged anyway and its much quicker and more convenient to block with the edge.

I agree John Clement's claim is BS at least in regards that only the flat should be used in blocking. However I did an experiment recently. I have an Arabian Scimitar short sword and a machete. I had a friend swing the machete at me which I would attempt blocks and parrying with the Scimitar. Now I notice first of all blocking and parrying using the edge DIRECTLY DAMAGED the sword in as early as the first blow and by the time I was finished the sword was so damaged you can see the once smooth blade had big chips in it. Cutting items became much more difficult and attempting to cut wood and meat doesn't slice it evenly anymore. Instead you see a razor zig zagging result with the cut item and what would take a single slice before would take several because the blade gets stuck in the item.

Secondly blocking and parrying was so difficult. Not only did many machete hits directly break through my blade and contacted my body but even successful blocks felt like it took so much of my strength especially single hand wielding stances. In addition counter attacking was near impossible in edge-to-edge defenses even quick ones like poking and wide regular blows you'd throw if you weren't in clinching swords together were near impossible.

Now I experimented with flat blocking. I was amazed how many hits it took to show any visible damage and even the visible damage wasn't chips or anything that would slightly affect sword usage but simply scratches and ruining the sword's painted art a little bit. In addition it was very easy to "redirect the opponent's force around esp back at them". By this I mean not only did it take minimal effort to block blows with a single hand but I felt it was easy to do further movements such as moving the sword in a circular movement so that you won't feel any impact from the hit. Going hand in hand with this because its so easy to direct the force counter attacks such as hitting with the hilt, slamming the flat on their face, and quick pokes were so so damn easy its ridiculous and I even found myself redirecting blows enough that my friend was wide open to regular wide sword swings. Even with I don't use force direction movements, it was pretty easy to tilt my friend to trip or something simply because blocking with the flat sent physics motion that made him unbalanced, even dropping the machete a few times. Without redirection, I can still easily counter attack with the flap by hitting with the cross guard or flap directly in a brute force push. When you add in using the second hand, it becomes easier done than said to do even advance techniques.

So I am wondering. With all the proponents about how the debate is useless and flat blocking shouldn't be used as primary defense because the sword will get damaged anyway and edge to edge is much quicker and easier to catch a blow in time, my experiment makes me skeptical of the recent counterarguments to Clement's conclusion. Trust me it took a single machete swing to chip my scimitar heavily and it was much easier using the flat for defenses than edge to edge defenses. It makes me think there's a lot of truth to Clement's statement and the recent HEMA experts who argue against it such as Matt Easton are wrong!

Can anyone clarify? I must point out I don't practise HEMA much (though I've been attending a school for 3 years) and my sword was a generic one bought at Ebay for $35. So I'm not sure if the chipping was due to poor quality or my lack of practise in swordsmanship.

I'm working on my PhD in Chinese history. One of my Chinese colleagues mentioned the other day that he was taught in primary school that the Hundred Flowers Campaign was a trap designed by Mao to lure out rightist intellectuals who he already didn't trust. In all of my readings, I never came across this historiography of the event. Are there sources to support this viewpoint?

You often see the 25-point program brought up by people as proof that the nazis were socialists, but I can't find anything online regarding whether or not Hitler actually acted on those promises. Is there maybe like a list somewhere that shows which point was enacted and which not, and how?

I realise that the chinese believed in the mandate of heaven, but still I think that the British military and navy would seem imposing even to the Chinese.

I was watching some primitive technology channels. They show that a bucket of metal ore can make a spoonful or three of raw metal ingots. But most prospectors nowadays use water staircases to density-concentrate ore before smelting.

Is this a relatively new invention? Or did primitive peoples concentrate ore before refining too?

Thank you.

I have heard that the American Civil War resulted in such loss of life because the tactics used were not yet adjusted to the more modern weapons, which were more accurate and deadly than in previous wars, specifically in Europe after which the tactics were modeled.

Is this true? Also, were there attempts or discussions to correct the use of infantry tactics to account for the above situation or to prevent unnecessary deaths?

Did they have to rewrite it every time? I mean it’s a fairly close date. How come such a basic and useful tool invented so late? Was it just in the west, was it invented earlier or later in Asia? Were there any other common methods? Thanks.

Hi everyone,

I'm currently reading about Athenian politics and came across an odd reference I wanted to follow up and was wondering if anyone knows where to find it/what it means:

Androtion, FGH 324 F 52 and Philochoros, FGH 328 F.

I am struggling to understand what FGH actually means. All the articles I have come across do not actually further elaborate in the bibliography, it only appears in footnotes. When I google it, it only come to dead ends.

Thanks!

A frequent historical claim I see being made is that the motivation behind the "Age of Discovery" was because the Ottomans blocked the trade route to the East after they conquered Constantinople.

However at the same time I have heard from others that the Iberians wanted to get around this in order to avoid the Venetian monopoly, and not because of the Ottomans.

I wanted to know how accurate these claims are and whether they are representative of historical facts?

As per the title, how were the first tank crews that saw combat in WWI selected and trained? I have read that British Mark I tanks at the Battle of Flers-Courcelette were the first to see combat, is this correct? I understand the first tanks were kept relatively secret, so how were crews selected and trained? Were they taken from infantry units, or perhaps logistic units? How long did training last, and what did the training involve? Did it include joint operations, or was it too secret to include other branches of the military?

My grandfather whom died before I was born was a B17 ball turret gunner who was shotdown and was a POW for about 14 months at Stalag 17. I never met him before but my father told me many things about him. He told me that at the end the Germans made him go on a “death march”. I was wondering what this specific march entailed and what happened? Also cool fact my father told me during this march my grandfather took an actual dump on the porch of Hitlers birth home, I have no idea how thats possible but I believe it.

In Europe, the legitimacy of a monarch's rule was founded on the concept of divine right. By observing the reaction to the execution of Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France, we can see that their divine right was treated very seriously by pretty much everyone. Did this concept apply to a heathen ruler such as Atahualpa? Was there any condemnation from Europe coming Pizarro's way?