Hi everyone, this is my first post here!

I just had a question about the lead-up to the Spanish Civil War. I’m aware of some of the reasons as to why the war happened and some of the disagreements that happened at the time but I have been asked to identify the “valid” reasons that people opposed the Spanish Republic government at the time before the war.

I’m just wondering about maybe examples of the liberal changes leading to a poorer quality of life or having other negative effects. Potentially other reasons to oppose the Republic other than just a fierce clash of ideologies and opinions.

Many thanks in advance!

In most new books, even academic ones usually there are slogans of "...including previously unstudied texts", suggesting a wealth of unknown or unstudied texts in archives. However, time and time again i see history books referring to commonly referred sources and texts like there are no alternatives in sources (for example, the writings of Katip and Evliya Celebi for Ottoman books that i've read). So, how much historical texts and archives that we haven't studied yet and what are them?

I don't know if this is a dumb question or not, and I'm trying not to sound stupid, lol. Basically what it says in the title, though. If I learned Latin today and spoke to Caesar, would I be able to understand him, and would he be able to understand me? Also, sub question: what name would his friends call him by? Caesar, right?

Were they just a possession? What factors were at play in the way horses were used and viewed?

I’m not sure if “cavemen” is a scientifically accurate word, or if “Neanderthal” is appropriate, but my question is essentially: in the early days of humans, did their nails and hair keep growing, or did they need some sort of grooming? (I’m thinking of how domestic animals often need nails trimmed but rarely need haircuts vs wild animals who obviously don’t have those options).

I’m also curious if acne was a problem for early humans, or if the way their bodies were and the way life was made it a non-issue.

Pretty much any facts about the human body/life in those times would be appreciated!

Hello, I happen to be doing a school task about the battle tactics used in the Napoleonic war. I’ve heard about the tactics Napoleon used but I would like to know about the other tactics used throughout all the wars then. Thanks

Dear AskHistorians,

I read a theory of political change that goes like this: if things are stably bad and have always been pretty bad, people do not rise up and demand reform or revolution. (Because there's no contrast between the way things are now and the way they've always been.)

But if people experience a substantial welfare improvement, and then lose some of those gains - whether in the form of rights or income or whatever - then they will demand reform/revolution.

I can't remember where I read this. The author had examples from history to justify the theory. Could you help me find it? Thank you!

Although I have read that they have found quite a bit of archaeological evidence in the form of tools on the east coast of the USA, I haven't seen anything new about how North America was populated? Is it being ignored, or has it been looked at as seriously as it could be?

Current chemistry uses a lot of heat sources to aid chemical reactions, including but not limited to bunsen burners, heating mantles, hot plates, and steam baths. I was wondering what early chemists (or alchemists before them) used to generate heat in a controlled environment. Did they just use wood flames, despite the smoke? Were coals popular? Haven't been able to find much online unfortunately.

Was there a personal conflict between them, or was this because the constitution does not give the US Vice President much of a role (and why did the framers do that by the way)?

This is the story, from Cutless, manufacturer of rubber propeller shaft bearings: “Cutless bearing technology advanced significantly during the Second World War when during the battle for the Coral Sea reverberations from explosions in the water hardened the rubber in Cutless bearings. Battleship propeller shafts locked up solid. Battlewagons went dead in the water. Once back in drydock at Pearl Harbor rigid rubber was soon replaced by the more resilient nitrile rubber.”

Viewing the initial advances of operation Barbarossa I was struck to find out that as a general rule, the Axis front line was stronger in numbers than that of the soviets.

That despite:

1. The need to keep forces elsewhere (Which I assume was a big deal for Germany during 1941, when the Reich extended over half of Europe).
2. The logistic difficulties in concentrating armies on the edge of Europe.
3. Having a significantly smaller population than the USSR.

This begs the following questions:

First of all, how accurate and reliable are the troop counts estimations and OOB of Operation Barbarossa? And how did the Soviets fail to outnumber the Axis troops, on home turf, despite having a larger population to draw from?

[deleted]