Am I the only one who's interested in how hat pins were made in the 18th century, or how radios were built during world war 2, and the material that went into them? Or factory lay outs and various machine tools... I have seen videos and articles on cool stuff like tank engines, and chainmail armor, and I know that locomotives are the passion of some - but the more mundane stuff would be interesting too; if only because no one really covers it.

Military history is a gigantic and very pedantic interest; youtube videos on battlefield logistics sometimes bring in tens or hundreds of thousands of viewers. I feel like the same sorts of people could be into this 'sub genre', as it were, as well. Am I wrong? If so, why? Why aren't people so enthusiastic about industrial history?

• Are there restrictions to purchasing a firearm if I am a land-owning white man? What if I am a white woman, or a free black person, or indigenous, or don't own any land?

• Is there an age limit?

• Are there special gun stores, or would I be going to the local general store?

• What kind of selection might I find? Just smooth-bore muskets, or are pistols and rifles also available?

• Is there *anything* for sale that I can shoot multiple times before reloading?

• How much might a firearm cost compared to the average wage in my community?

• Can I buy this weapon on credit?

• Edit: Almost forgot. How much does ammo cost?

To my knowledge the Cagots had no ethnic or language differences to the larger populations they lived with, yet they were still the subject of persecution by these societies.

What were relations like within the Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Westphalia, specifically relations between the Emperor and Protestant princes? Once the question of religion was settled, did the princes continue to regard the Emperor as their rightful liege, albeit with significant autonomy (as they had always had), or was the relationship fundamentally changed or broken by the war? Were there specific efforts by princes to undermine the Emperor's claim to authority, or attempts by Austria to bring wayward princes back into their sphere of influence?

For the purpose of timeframe, I'm looking at roughly 30-40 years after the war unless there's a specific date that makes sense in defining the post-war period.

This has interested me for a while. In most 911 emergency situations, the people involved are unable to go to the hospital or police station. If someone is having a heart attack, they often won't be able to make it to the hospital. And if someone is the victim of a crime, they likely won't be able to make it to the police station either. How were these emergency situations handled before 911?

Hello,

After watching some of "Knowing Better" describing the long history of chattel slavery existing in the USA after the ratification of the 13th Amendment, and some of the issues that preceded the formation of the country, there was mention of the outcome of the case between Somerset v. Stewart in 1772, where the legal precedent was ruled that slavery was not a natural state and the institution of slavery needed to be implemented by positive laws affirming it. Since this was in opposition to the idea that black people were inherently lesser than whites, and seemed to be a boost to the agenda of the abolitionist movement, I began to wonder whether this decision was more of a contributor to the start of the Revolutionary War than the idea of oppressive taxation or the Boston Tea Party activities, to maintain the status quo of chattel slavery to the benefit of rich American business owners and the like.

Is this an accurate assessment or has this idea already come up in contemporary discussions of American history?

Need answer for historical fiction piece, and want it to be accurate...

Today we take it for granted that waging an aggressive war is immoral. When a nation goes to war it seeks to justify the decision to their own citizens and to the world at large. Usually it tries to cast its aggression as self-defense, or as necessary to right a historic wrong, or as being good for the inhabitants of the invaded lands. Sometimes false flag operations are staged as a pretext for fighting. Everyone from the Spanish Conquistadors to the American Revolutionaries to the Nazis to today's Russians has argued for the morality or necessity of their war-making.

My question is, did the Mongol conquerors also attempt to moralize their conquests? Or did they take it for granted that the strong could take what they wanted from the weak?

I remember reading something about this. The loss of the White House is regarded as one of the most shameful American defeats and embarrassments.

However, while the US forces at the Battle of Bladensburg which enabled it, get rightly criticised, I believe the British forces were some of the elite, who had undergone trial by fire during the Napoleonic Wars and some had served with the Duke of Wellington.

So it might have been not so much that the Americans were so bad but that the British were so good.

I'm looking for information on the history of candymaking in general, and caramel in particular. I'm finding a lot of unsourced articles claiming that there was a Middle Eastern precursor to caramel around the year 1000, and that the modern version of the candy emerged around 1850, with the addition of cream to the recipe. But the problem is, that's a really big gap, and all of this is unsourced! Does anyone know this history, or a reputable book on the subject that I could read?

If not, any resources on the history of making candy, particularly sugar candies, would be appreciated. I'm willing to do my own reading, I'm just having an awful time finding a place to start for this one!

Where did the number 5 come from and why was it those specific states and areas? For example, why Texas and Louisiana together when instead they could've done Texas by itself and then Louisiana in the Arkansas and Mississippi cluster? What was the partitioning based on? Was it completely arbitrary or did it have a reason? If so, what was the reason?

In many articles and books, I've seen people write that Europe "sleepwalked" into one of the most devastating wars in its history in 1914. What exactly do historians mean when they write that Europe "sleepwalked" into war? And how and in what ways?

I only found this out the other day. Are there lessons to be learned from how people dealt with this phenomenon?

I am writing a novel for fun, set in the Old West, specifically 1895. The story follows an American outlaw protagonist and his journey towards proving a crime false all the while evading the Law. Along the way, he meets a Chinese immigrant in jail and this newcomer agrees to help him after making a deal. The Chinese man was an ex-railroad worker who got thrown in jail for killing another railroad worker (though it turned out it was an accident and a misunderstanding).

Essentially, I’d like to include this Chinese immigrant side character who speaks some English but will also occasionally utter words from his native tongue. For the sake of historical accuracy, I tried looking it up but kept coming across different answers and as someone who is not familiar with a lot of Chinese history/culture, I was wondering if someone on this subreddit could help me out. Is it Mandarin? Traditional Chinese? Something else? Are there any other cultural facts that are important to know for this time period?

This character is a Chinese man approximately 35 years old and this story takes place in 1895 United States.

Did Zoroastrianism influence the development or emergence of the Abrahamic religions?

I’m asking because aren’t the oldest Zoroastrian texts from the sixth century A.D.?