Although Tammany Hall initially touted itself as a an organization for "pure Americans," midway through the 19th century, it increasingly courted immigrants as a reliable voting block for electing its political candidates. In return, those under its patronage could expect employment opportunities and various forms of social assistance. I'm especially interested in the latter. Before the institution of a federal safety net for the disabled, impoverished and destitute, what kind of material assistance did the political machine provide to its most vulnerable patrons? Cash? Buckets of coal? Baskets of groceries? How frequent were these gifts? How were these forms of assistance viewed by Anglo-Americans?

Hannibal is celebrated as a military genius but after reading Livy and Polybius I can't help but think his victory at Cannae was heavily dependent on the poor decisions of the Consuls, such as massing 8 legions in one decisive battle, instead of continuing Fabius's war of attrition, and because of Varro's overconfidence . I am led to believe this due to his failure to make Rome submit after Canae and his great defeat by Scipio at Zama. I know hindsight is a bitch but charging into the heart of enemy territory might have gained him a massive victory but overall it just toughened Roman resolve and left his supply lines in Spain to be dominated by Scipio. Could it not be argued that Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and victory at Cannae was actually a strategic blunder that led to the downfall of Carthage?

In Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, he discusses the opposition for revolution from both the USSR and the Communist Party in Spain. Why is this? Specifically, why would communists oppose revolution and support the return to a capitalist democracy?

References to this are in chapter 5: "In particular the Communist Party, with Soviet Russia behind it, had thrown its whole weight against the revolution. It was the Communist thesis that revolution at this stage would be fatal and that was to be aimed at in Spain was not workers' control, but bourgeois democracy" (page 51)

"The general swing to the Right dates from about October-November 1936, when the U.S.S.R. began to supply arms to the Government and power began to pass from the Anarchists to the Communists. ... Consequently the Russians were in a position to dictate terms. There is very little doubt that these terms were, in substance, 'Prevent revolution or you get no weapons,' and that the first move against the revolutionary elements, the expulsion of the P.O.U.M. from the Catalan Generalité, was done under orders from the U.S.S.R." (page 53)

There are two parallel ideas I am curious about:

1. The idea of the northern "carpetbagger" who came down as part of reconstruction as part of the reconstruction administration to get rich and not govern well.
2. The idea that the black-led local and state governments as well as the freedman's bureaus of the reconstruction era south were incompetent because of corruption and a lack of education of people trying to move people from slavery, where people had little education, to governance, where people need a lot of education.

How much of the above ideas were real, and how much was just Dunning school white supremacist historiography?

I find it hard, or even impossible to find good material about the priestess Muhumusa and the whole movement against colonialists she apparently led. All the material I find online doesnt seem like proper source material but rather like a legend

It seems like the way the Ottomans developed their janissary corps is a lot of hassle. What is the purpose of kidnapping Christian children, converting them to Islam and eventually training them to become a military unit? I don't see why they would do this instead of raising the janissaries from their own citizens.

At which point stopped humans mating like animals with whoever they saw (if they even did at any point) and started living in relationsships? (I know there probably isn't one specific moment in human history, but I am happy to learn just anything about this topic)

I am trying to gain more of an understanding of the conditions that allowed communist groups or governments to gain popular support in countries in Southeast Asia (Laos and Vietnam in particular) but I want to try and remove the threat of force aspect from the equation.

Were there propaganda techniques or other methods of convincing the common citizen to join their cause that were at all unique to the time and place that are notable or are they very similar stories to China or Russia?

It is impossible to know with absolute certainty what “Siam” would look like now culturally and politically if it remained untouched by European colonialism and Communism. What would motivate a Lao person of the time to espouse removing their government in favor of the Communists beyond simply “economic factors”?

Obviously impoverished areas became breeding grounds for communist revolutions. But, as far as I can tell, every single one of those movements started off as “populist” movements and then all became authoritarian regimes with the same exact problems. Did the monarchies and communist regimes amount to the same thing for the average citizen in the end?

Wikipedia writes that:

• Despite initial resistance from the market to accept a perceived "plastic gun" due to both unfounded durability and reliability, as well as concerns and fears that its use of a polymer frame might circumvent metal detectors in airports, Glock pistols have become the company's most profitable line of products*

However, the article has no source attribution or references about that. So, is it true that Glock pistols were at first unpopular due to supposed plastic construction?

See Above.

I asked in r/history but they deleted it so I left those jabronis and came here. I saw some bones that were 5,000 years old were found at the site recently and it only just occured to me that it was there whilst there wars were going on.

I googled it but not much came up, nothing that I could see anyway. There was a forum where someone said that Stonehenge was allegedly moved during the wars to protect it, did this happen? Did Stonehenge see any action? Why doesn't it look like the side of an Afghanistan building in the Call of Duty games if it did see action?

Thank u, love u x