Now I know that the "asiatic russian hordes" trope is a lie based on German propaganda but I have nothing to replace it with.

1. I assume that the successful conflicts with Japan/Poland (1939) and the disastrous Winter War (1940) had an impact on infantry doctrine when the war started in 1941.

2. I assume that the quality of the troops was high antebellum and that the enormous defeats of the Soviet military early on had more to do with grand strategy failures.

3. I assume that the quality of the soldiers fell to its lowest point in 1942 when the Soviet Union was at its lowest point.

4. I assume that there is a quality difference between the normal infantry divisions and the elite guard divisions. That the Red Army is largely conscripted army with a volunteer professional core.

Are my assumptions correct? And how did the quality of the troops change over the course of the war?

So in my classics class this last spring semester we read Secret History by Procopius and talked a lot about Justinian and Theodora. It was clear that Procopius didn't have many nice things to say about the couple, especially Theodora. One of my favorite little anecdotes was during the Nika Riots, I believe, where Justinian proposed fleeing for safety, and Theodora basically told him off in front of everyone saying that he could leave if he chose, but she was staying right where she was. I want to know, was this story actually true? And how much of an empress was Theodora really?

Thank you guys in advance <3 I truly love this board.

The Romans are well known for having had advanced methods of mining for their time, so it stands to reason that they produced a large amount of gold, silver and lead, and that this would hinder later production if they fully exploited the most accessible reserves. Gold and Silver are very unreactive and sought after so I was wondering if we know what happened to large amounts of it. Thank you in advance to any information people can share on this.

One sees a lot of cuirasses, helmets and coats of mail from Persia and India dating to the 17th, 18th and even the 19th century. Meanwhile, European armies were abandoning their superior armour around the mid-17th century. Why did the use of armour persist in the Middle East?

I'm specifically interested in the English Channel during the 100 Years War. I haven't been able to find information about whether flags, banners, etc. were used that far back. And if they were not used, how did the English and French sides recognize enemy vessels and differentiate them from friendly vessels/merchant vessels/etc.?

In the July issue of "Iliustruotoji istorija" (Illustrated History) there is an article entitled "Torched Germany" about the RAF strategic bombing on Germany. The article makes several claims, which I have doubts about and I hope historians here can clarify:

The claims that have given me doubt are:

• The RAF scandalously couldn't hit factories, especially during the bombings of the Ruhr valley in 1940. They were very inaccurate in their raids.
• The bombings of Germany were primarily done as retribution for the Blitz and made to appease the British population.
• the RAF bombing campaign wasted vital resources which could have been used on the navy, fighters and army.
• The primary goal of the bombings was to terrify the German workers into less productivity by leaving them homeless and to terrify the Germans into surrendering.
• Bombing targets were frequently picked (cited example is Lubeck) on how good they were likely to make Sir Arthur Harris look, not on necessity.
• The 1942 bombing of Cologne was primarily a PR stunt
• Arthur Harris purposely made sure that Lancester crews wouldn't know about poor crew survivability in the case of a crash.
• Strategic bombing didn't achieve much and didn't significantly harm German morale or their industry.
• Dresden wasn't a military target.
• Majority of the bombings done in 1945 were pointless. Given examples are: Dresden, Cologne, Essen and Potsdam.
• Overall the strategic bombers were unnecessary cruelty against German civilians and a waste of RAF resources.

The only examples cited I could find for the article are in the recommended reading section as follows:

1. J. Friedrich "The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940-1945", Columbia Uni. Press, 2008
2. R. Overy "The Bombing War: Europe, 1939-1945", Penguin, 2014

I am interested, do the historians here have anything to say about the claims here?

Was there a system in place? Would it be possible for them to get a reply back? How did this work? Links or book recommendations welcome. Information even semi related welcome.

If I understand correctly, colonization and the associated monetary lure led to the development of several racist theories as well as widespread prejudice against non-white peoples in Europe and the 'new' continents of America.

When the explorer from various countries left to find a sea route to the Indies, they were looking to cut out the (presumably rich Arab) middlemen in the trade of (presumably) good quality products they were already importing. I presume quality because of the massive efforts made to establish direct trade.

If they were looking for a place that is the source of luxury products for Europe, it is difficult to imagine that there might have been an existing superiority complex in the European perspective, particularly when talking about India or China.

What I am left wondering is that was there a time before all this (and if so when was it for different parts of Europe) when an Indian, Chinese (or more generally non-European) person would face curious looks but not discrimination? Be seen as different and foreign, but not necessarily inferior?

How were Indians, Chinese, Arabs, and Africans perceived in pre-colonial Europe? How would a visitor from one of these places be received in pre-colonial capitals of Europe, if they somehow got there?

I’m a military uniform collector, and one (perhaps foolish) thing I’ve always wondered is why wool persisted so long as a main material for military field uniforms. It doesn’t seem too durable, or comfortable. Even in countries with abundant cotton (the United States), we see wool shirts, pants, and jackets being worn in the field even in WW2!

The Germans, the Brits, The French, etc all wore primarily wool tunics and trousers. Was this due to tradition? Wool’s inherent properties? Availability?

Post war, we see a lot of nations transitioning to cotton-based uniforms, many based on the M43 and fatigue uniforms the United States had developed. Why did everyone suddenly shift? Had they finally accepted that cotton was the future? Was civilian fashion and technology an influence?

Sorry if this is a bit rambly, but I just find it strange to compare the rapid shift from pre-war heavy wool, to the lightweight camo cottons of the cold war!

This is for a setting I'm creating based on a far future, terraformed, post-apocalyptic Mars. My objective is to build an epic fantasy world out of hard science fiction parts, to bring the 'feeling' of fantasy into the realm of the possible. And that requires rigorous attention to detail.

Now the thing about Mars is that it doesn't have any fossil fuels to cheaply power an industrial revolution, explaining the classic fantasy trope of "pre-industrial stasis". I was expecting that going in, and I think I've made a decent enough job of untangling the Industrial Revolution innovations that require fossil fuels from those that do not (but I could always do with some more pointers on this).

But for the same reason it doesn't have fossil fuels, Mars also doesn't have large amounts of limestone. While there is some that resulted from chemical reactions in drying lakebeds, those meagre deposits are now at the bottom of refilled lake and seabeds.

The only other way to get Calcium Carbonate is by farming snails and oysters for their shells, and recycling the eggshells of birds. That's enough for small scale uses, but using it for construction doesn't seem economically viable.

No limestone means no mortar, cement, concrete, or any serious mineral adhesive. All you've got is mud and plaster, or just no mortar at all.

My problem when researching this is that lime-based mortar seems to be such a basic invention that its use often goes unremarked. I'm sure there are certain architectural designs that have lime mortar as a hard requirement, like the flying buttresses of medieval cathedrals. I'm sure there are many features that typically use mortar, but can be achieved without it. Dry stone arches are certainly possible, or else all those pictures on google images are liars, but what are their limits compared to mortared arches? When studying Bronze Age architecture for examples, should I be worried that some of their elements are the result of factors other than the absence of good mortar?

Any insight on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible.

About 1 week ago I posted the letter in full to /r/history but then redacted it, I was somehow nervous about posting it without my great great grandfathers name, (which I don't have) and that it could be altered and nobody would be able to tell the altered one from the original.

I went to get a haircut today, and my barber is Mexican, and has is very interested in the culture and history, I asked him about a drawing on the wall that said "the general" and he told me it was Pancho villa, I told him about the letter, and the barber shop was kind of taken back, and told I should probably find someone to get it authenticated or at least documented elsewhere since I might have the only copy now.

I do have a somewhat original version of it, a typed copy, with the letter addressed to a American Consulate in Los Angeles, Ca.

The letter is dated Jan 27th 1917, and covers Villa's progress, and his effort to hide from him in a pretty crazy detailed story from October 28th-December 13th(1916). At the end my great grandfather says he was lucky to flee to Texas, after spending 35 years in Mexico. I think its interesting for my family history, but I feel like some of the dates, names and descriptions might be good information for someone/something. I don't want to post the letter in full, but here are some parts of it.

I saw my way across the town to the San Nicolas quarter and went to the house of some poor Mexicans that I had known a great many year; they had promised to give me refuge there in case the Villistas should come to Parral, and in accordance with my instructions they had dug a hole in the back yard, where I had made up my mind to hide in case I could not get out of town. I knew that the Villistas would kill me if they caught me, because I am an American. The back yard of the house was surrounded by a high wall, which I thought would be an additional protection from inquisitive eyes. I remained in hiding in a back room of this house until November 5th, the day that Villa entered Parral with his troops: General Luis Herrera had left the before for Santa Barbara with his cavalry so there was no fighting. My friend brought me word that the Villista soldiers were searching the town for Americans and Chinese, and so at 11 A.M. I told them that I was ready to be buried in the hole out in the back yard. This hole was underneath a large pile of wood and was about 4 1⁄2 ft. deep, 2 1⁄2 ft. wide and not more than 5 ft. long; it might be described as a rather undersized grave. My friends had intended to line it with lumber but could not get any without exciting some suspicion.

cont

I asked my friends to find out what was going on in town, as I was anxious about my American friends. Upon their return, some hours after, I was horrified to learn that my friend, Howard Gray, whom I had seen but a few days before, had been captured at the Presena Mine and assassinated by the Villistas. They told me how Gary had been tortured to death. They said that the Villiatas had stripped off his cloths and forced him along the road towards Parral, jabbing him with their sabres and knives, until poor Gary fell from loss of blood. God only knows what his suffering were before they put an end to him!- My friends also told me that the bodies of twelve Chinese that the Villistas had assassinated were lying about the streets in different quarters of the town.

Anyways, Do you think its important, if so to who?

Hi everyone, I am an undergrad student majoring in Ancient Greek/roman history, and I am looking for a good book on the Greek myths... Much of my studies have been on other issues and I'm looking for a good text that contains the myths themselves for reference etc. Apologies for my English

I know little to nothing about Tibet, except that it has enormous mountains and a lot of snow. I think it may be an extremely difficult land to control, due to the mountains and extreme weather. I wonder what benefit was China exactly seeking in invading that country in 1950.

Hi I’d like to get an answer of what would happen if in a monarchy with male preferred primogeniture what would happen if a king had one wife who had a daughter then died and then remarried and had a son with the 2nd wife. Would the elder daughter inherit as she is older and the son isn’t if the same wife or would the son inherit as he is still a son and the wife order doesn’t matter. Thanks in advance.

1752 - Franklin discovered electricity

...

1865 - Slavery abolished in U.S.

1879 - Someone (Edison?) invented the light bulb

In case it's not clear where I'm coming from: the relationship between slavery and electricity is that they both powered technology. I'm wondering if the end of slavery sparked a need for something else to make life comfortable for the upper class, causing them to throw money and interest at scientists.

Apparently tax farming has been a fairly common practice throughout the world. I doubt that this is because all the countries were in communication with each other.

What political, economic, or institutional facts made tax farming appear to be a good idea to these different regimes? Are there any general reasons for it? Similarly, once tax farming was established how did regimes move from that to other forms of taxation? How were tax farmers actually able to collect taxes?

Hello everyone,

When most people learn about WW1, we're in school, and teachers and books will tell us that what caused the war was the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip and the chain of alliances that followed that caused the war. However, after reading a few books, it seems clear that if the assassination was the match that started the fire, all countries involved were ready and waiting for the war, even had moved some of their troops already.
However, we're told that without this single assassination, that war would've never started, even if we're given a bit of details we're never told as if countries involved wanted that war, but more as if it was a kind of accident in a heated period.

So why do we keep that explanation instead of taking a few more paragraphs to have a better picture of what happened back then?

I recently went to a baseball game with my girlfriend and we picked our exact seats then went in, first thing i thought was how was this done prior to computers? Was it all done with general admission, with a first come first serve rule? Were there seperate ticket windows for seperate price sections?

I know that the Semitic sounding language and the runes come from Tolkien, but where do they get the accents from and does this have anything to do with Tolkien?