I don't mean this question against the field of history and those that study it (as a quick look at my profile will show). I am curious to know how historians see their field and its place on society.

I’ve looked at photos of George Mallory’s body and his butt and legs seem to have large cracks / holes in them. He looked like he was a mannequin with holes in him. How did this happen?

Since the Ottoman Empire co-existed with the discovery of the New World, did they ever express any interest in it? What was their attitude towards the discovery of the Americas? Did they ever have any overseas territories (not necessarily in America)?

Everywhere I try to find this it just gives me a biography of his life, not any actual indications as his significance.

Any help appreciated, thanks.

I really couldn't find any good English resources for this topic (please recommend accessible books etc. if you have any!)

I have an economics professor who likes to pretend he is a historian, a anthropologist, and a sociologist all in one. He said today that these canals caused breeding from more geographically dispersed communities, which helped the industrial revolution take off

Sorry to ask weird questions, but is this bullshit?

Sorry if the title is a bit awkward, but anyway -

The Second Amendment goes as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But the definition of the "Militia" -in the constitution- (**EDIT - I've been corrected. By "the Constitution" I should have said "officially.") is:

"Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia. (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.) Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia."

Given that, it seems to me that the aim was made at giving the states the ability to arm men (as the Militia, the National Guard) to fight against the Federal Government if needed -- Not to allow all citizens to own a gun for civil use (or, if it was made to allow citizens to own guns, it was made to put them into the National Guard with them, yes?).

If I'm not missing anything, which I probably am, how did we go about interpreting the 2nd Amendment how we do?

We know a pretty good deal about what Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians thought about their gods and their afterlife. Thousands of religious icons, letters, and inscriptions survive from around 2500 to 500 BC. Does any of this data provide any commentary on other people's beliefs?

Was there any kind of forensic or synthetic dialogue between religious scholars during this period, comparable rich discourse between Jews and Romans around the turn of the first millenium? The Egyptian and Sumerian conceptions of a life beyond death seem pretty incompatible. I want to find out if there's any evidence of ancient Near Easterners contemplating each others' beliefs.

And did he discuss his manifesto/thoughts with others (also before 1995)?

Bears are extremely large and powerful animals, so it seems like they would be fairly useful to have around at least for protection, if not hunting. In addition manny bear’s diets consist of largely plants, so they wouldn’t be that much harder to feed than other large mammals like ox.

If we took the time and effort to domesticate cats and dogs, why not bears?

It seems that a huge, rectangular shield like those stereotypical Roman shields seen in movies would be best for protection. If you lose less men, surely the extra cost of a bigger shield far outweighs dragging men in, training them, clothing them, outfitting them in armor (which can be taken off the dead bodies by the other side), etc.

​

Is there a reason for the smaller circles that seem so prevalent? I've seen them from England to China in my research but this doesn't make sense.

They had lots of land around Britain like France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Norway. Surely they could have successfully invaded Britain. American aid couldn't have been enough to stop the Nazi's war tactics. So, how did they do it?

The way I understand it the funds came from the treasury, but how did they change hands? Did the US just send shipments of Gold or other goods to Napoleon? What with difference in currency, it couldn’t just be paper money or anything like that right?

I've been really interested in the topic of Heritage sites during times of conflict, I'm aware the protection of cultural property with the hague convention didn't happen until 1954.

I was just wondering, did countries put anything in place to protect sites of important cultural/historical value during WWII?

I can find alot about specific artifacts and small museums' inventories being moved to safe places, but I can't really find anything regarding major historical buildings and if anything was done to keep them preserved during the conflict.

Specifically, how was CCR seen in the Southern United States? As I assume their accents are exaggerated, was this an issue at the time?

I've posted this before, but have not received an answer.

So I wouldn't really consider myself a communist. But medieval europe seems like the perfect place for communism or socialism to take root.
I know that the church preached against things like greed and gluttony- traits generally associated with the rich. In addition, I've read that many lords demanded large portions of working people's resources and/or kept many natural resources to themselves- i.e. lots of grain, many places only allowed royalty to hunt in the region, etc.
So with all of this in mind, why didn't communism or socialism become a thing back then? I know there's the reasoning that they were too busy trying not to starve to death, and most peasants were illiterate, but it seems like something that would've eventually gained traction.
I should also note that I'm not saying communism/socialism is inherently good/bad. I'm just genuinely curious.

Hello! I’ve always been curious about what podcasts historians find interesting and accurate. As a lay person, I found revolutions and history of Rome podcasts by Mike Duncan very entertaining, but have no basis for their historical accuracy.

Edit: I'm referring to the "dialects" such as Cantonese, Hakka, etc.