Hey all.

I'm doing some work on a Tabletop RPG set on ships in the age of sail.
While I'm working on the boarding mechanics, I wonder why there is mainly light weapons and little to no armor used (at least in popular culture).

Was there a reason, that there were mainly one handed weapons, no hammers, two handed swords etc used? Was it because of the presence of firearms, that people tended to not use armor and keep the arms light? Did sailors use primarily what was available? Why dont we see organised, royal navies equip boarding parties with armor, sword, shield etc.

​

Tl;Dr:
Why did boarders in the age of sail use mainly light weapons?

I'm curious as to how twins were handled in the various succession customs around Europe in the middle ages, especially concerning primogeniture. Were surviving male twins a common enough occurrence that it was something that special rules were set aside for? Otherwise did the potential complications of twins make them an awkward development? Reading around on wikipedia its kind of difficult to find many examples of prominent twins but one case that seems like the kind of bad scenario I'm imagining is that of Ramon Berenguer II and his brother Berenguer Ramon II (creative names of course) who jointly became the counts of Barcelona but had a falling out that likely resulted in Berenguer Ramon murdering his brother. The fallout of that was civil war in Catalonia and the surviving brother ultimately resigning the post of count to his dead brother's son and living the rest of his life dogged by his reputation for fratricide.

Another pair that come up are Waleran and Robert de Beaumont, though their brotherly relationships seems an awful lot better than the Counts of Barcelona and they had a lot of influence in 12th century English and Norman politics.

First time posting in this sub.

Much has been made of Eisenhower’s famous warning to the American people regarding the threats posed by the “military industrial complex” and also “technological scientific elite”. These comments seem incredibly meaningful and get more prescient by the day, but they also have garnered the attention of a lot of conspiracy theorists and lunatics who cloud the whole even with specious argument and misleading analysis.

I would like to learn more about the surrounding context and what led to these warnings. If anyone can help disentangled what’s conspiracy-laden inference, what’s fact, what’s plausible assumption and help me glean some insight into what prompted these warnings and how they were interpreted by the public at that time I would appreciate it.

I am from Brazil, a country which is going through an economic crisis and has gone through many others during the past decades.

When thinking about this situation I wonder how did countries that were devastated and/or ocupated during WW2 recover their economies after the war was over. Specially Germany, whose economy had been completely converted by the Nazis to fuel its war machine in an absolutely unsustainable manner. How were they able to revert that situation?

I know US investments were very helpful and played a big role but could someone explain the specifics and details of it?

Which books would be good for understanding more about this subject?

Which books would be good for understanding the economical recovery of other countries in situations similar to Brazil's? Are there any other threads in this subreddit about any of these two subjects?

And were the French mad at her other allies?

Was it present from the origination of the papal office or was it formulated later? If later, under what circumstances and what effect did it have on papal-clerical or papal-laity relations?

Finally, "infallibility" sounds very, well, cut-and-dried. Are there limits to it? How would disagreement with a papal decree or action be reconciled with this concept?

[deleted]

Dear Historians,

I have a question about early medieval England (as it is described by the author without providing any further reference): The authors claims that in early medieval England 'private agents' enforced public rules.Is that true? And where would I find additional information?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

I know the term "Great War" was used for WW1, but surely in 1914 there was a different name for the conflict.

I'm from Poland so i have a lot of reasons to dislike them but i find it weird that they only have monuments dedicated to the Red Army, Jews etc. But not to their own soldiers that died for their country too.

It seems strange to me that both Portugal, with its strong ties to England, and Spain, with its historical hatred of England and the promise of new Portuguese holdings, both remained neutral throughout the entirety of the war. Why was England so intent on Portuguese neutrality despite their control over several key tactical islands like the Azores and the possibility of a direct land route into France? Wouldn't a complete blockade of the west Atlantic be very advantageous for Nazi Germany? If they held Gibraltar, couldn't they cut the allies off from the Mediterranean and prevented the invasion of Sicily?

The movie is something i grew up watching with my dad and it oddly warms my heart every time i watch it, but when it comes down to brass tax i understand that it is obviously a romanticized version of things.

How accurate are the depictions of the characters in the film based on accounts of them?

Does the love triangle between harry, kitty, and Michael have any basis in reality?

And finally ive heard that the director took some liberties in the bloody sunday scene

Any analysis would be greatly appreciated

Science can sometimes seem like a pretty cut and dry concept, but the things people can categorize as 'science' and 'not science' differ by place and time. Science has have specific associations with political authority and elements of culture. To some, science might be seen as a progressive force, and to others it could be corrupting and destabilizing. Science is also related to modes of authority; who does and doesn't get to call themselves a scientist can often determine who is in a position to labeling things as true or false.

I don't know much about the history of the Soviet Union, but even a brief glance at the writings of people like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin shows they placed a heavy importance on describing socialism as a science. I understand this has a history behind it, related to Marx and Engels' view of knowledge as the empirical observation of a materialist world. However, this understanding of Marxism as a science would have traveled a far distance in time and space to reach Lenin, and I'm wondering how Lenin (or other Bolsheviks) would have regarded 'science.'

From what I understand, Lenin was himself a rather skilled university student, and his tenure as a professor was a key part of his political development. His relationship with intellectualism also seems to be important in conceptualization of a 'revolutionary vanguard.' How would he have understood 'science,' given both his background and Russian culture's relation to science at the time?

Like, not just a collection of books but like an entirely self / family written collection that was not published? Is that even a thing?

Is it generally OK to do the honor of reading it yourself first if in a language you understand? (not fishing for opinion, sorry for riding the rules so closely with that last bit though)

Mods: If I need to edit that last question out, please just ask so I don't have to resubmit.

I've been thinking about purchasing a Civil War book or books. Which do you think is the best buy out of these?

Battle Cry of Freedom: James M. McPherson.

The American Civil War: Gary W. Gallagher (Audiobook + Pdf)

The Civil War: A Narrative: Shelby Foote.

Or is their something better out there?

I recently had an interesting discussion with a family member concerning colonial politics in the Caribbean during the early 1900's (my great-grandmother was born in a German community in Jamaica in 1914). While talking he brought up the French colony of Martinique, and how it was completely wiped out in a volcanic eruption, save for 3 survivors. I was curious as to what happened to these people. Looking into it a fare few people survived, albeit with serious injuries. My question is in regards to whether there is a list of accounts from any of these survivors, or perhaps if one of them wrote a book about the experience. Notably, a young girl by the name of Havivra Da_Ifrile survived by hiding in a cave, and supposedly lived a healthy life. This was in 1902, so presumably there may be more relatively modern information about her, or if she had any children, but I have been unable to find anything yet. Please let me know if there's anything out there!

Thanks

How was the structure of the Confederacy determined, how did they decide who would determine it and did the USA have any idea it was happening until the Civil War started?

​

I'm mainly trying to understand where/when did the idea of secession begin. And when Fort Sumter was getting shot, what were members of Congress doing? Were there southern politicians who were caught off-guard? Any northern ones who sympathized with the CSA?

​

If you have any books on the planning of the Civil War, I would love any recommendations as well. Thank you

Hi, I had a discution about the holocaust with my father when he mention some papers from 1915 to 1938 that talk about a six million death count for jews before the holocaust. I really didnt know what to tell him so I was looking for an answer to the argument.