Put differently, how screwed was Britain in 1940 before the Battle of Britain had been won?

Was there anyone in ancient Rome who thought that the class structure was unethical? Or in 14th century France who thought that the monarchy and the church shouldn't have so much money while there were people starving?

And if 19th century socialists were the first, where did they get their ideas? Who influenced them?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I have been immensely interested about Greek mythology for some time, but I have never read from any comprehensive text on the subject. Hence, my question is: what are the most well researched, accurate and detailed books on Greek mythology ?

I do not mind if the books in question are dry as long as they have detailed information.

I know this sounds stupid, but ive had this on my mind for a while now

Hello, I seem to remember some research that was commissioned by Wilson in the Middle East prior to the Paris Peace Conference. It went by the name of two men who I can't remember for the life of me.

The long story short was that it was research showing that the US mandating Zionist interests would not be favorable in the region. This information was suppressed, not released to the public basically because it would have unfavorably changed their opinion. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I have been searching for it for around a half hour and I can't find it.

I've been curious about the German Empire's goals had they won the First World War. There is plenty of speculation online but I was hoping for something more academic. I have a Master's in history so I can parse some sophisticated texts, so that's not a concern.

I also understand that their ambitions in 1914 would be different than in 1916, 1917 or 1918. I'd love to read something that discussed how the targets changed over time.

Any suggestions would be welcome!

Nowadays it is clear that people dress significantly less formal than they did in the past. I often see in movies, pictures, and other meidums that people would always be wearing an outfit that would be considered formal today. Practicaly everyone would also be wearing a hat of sorts. Today people wear things like sweatpants, t-shirts, tank tops, and short shorts out in public on a daily basis. If you ask the average person why they are wearing something like that they'll say "because it is comfortable" but it is certainly not presentable. What happened?

Please let me know if I should further clarify what i'm thinking as this topic greatly intrigues me. I would also like to know how I can begin to study this topic further.

Rome does not have a particularly glorious history with cavalry and Roman armies famously made use of auxiliaries for their mounted troops. It seems the Roman cavalry was mainly used for scouting, but when it did come to fighting, how did the cavalry fight? Were they used in a specific way? Did they fight with different weapons? One would think the glaive would be impractical.

I had the late republic in mind when asking the question but I'm curious about the other periods as well.

Hi, it's my first time in this subreddit. I'm a Mexican film student writing about a fictional american family tree going from 1618 up to 2017, but I have some questions regarding the 17th century period.

• What was the normal age to get married for men and women?
• How many children did they usually had?
• Were divorces and/or second marriages common?

The story takes place in the State of New Jersey if that helps.

Did the Germanic tribes know China existed? How quickly would China have heard that their trading partner had fallen?

I just started reading (well, listening on my long and boring commute) to On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman, while not really an historical book, early on there is a quote:

The longbow would still have been used in the Napoleonic Wars if the raw mathematics of killing effectiveness was all that mattered, since both the longbow’s firing rate and its accuracy were much greater than that of a smoothbore musket. But a frightened man, thinking with his midbrain and going “ploink, ploink, ploink” with a bow, doesn’t stand a chance against an equally frightened man going “BANG! BANG!” with a musket.

I was always under the impression that the problem with longbows was that a bowman needed to start training as a young child and make bowmanship his life priority. So while more effective as an individual weapon than the continental crossbow, the crossbow was ultimately cheaper to field. Later, muskets even more so, and later still rifles even more than that, to the point that a few weeks basic training could make an effective riflemen.

I have not really been able to find much on this quote on the net, so I thought I would ask for an AskHistorians opinion on it, within the historical context of course.

Hi!

I've tried to reacclimate myself with history at large within the last few months.

From what I've gathered, and this is probably wrong, colonialism is essentially the practice of intentionally displacing the populace already there. Imperialism, on the other hand, is technically "leasing" a spot ( but you have guns, so less leasing, more threatening?) and building a defensive parameter around that, which, after a while needs its own defensive parameter. Therefore imperialism would be a more "natural" expansion?

I apologise if this is a dumb question, it's just that so often I see them discussed as synonyms, and I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding my sources.

(e.g Band of brothers, Saving private Ryan) Edit: Style is probably more correct than genre.

I was just wondering how unskilled (using this term loosely in the context of an individual not being able to gather resources) early man survive. Prior to the first groups of humans banding together, we were hunter/gatherer nomads. I'm pretty much assuming during that time if you were unskilled in getting food for yourself, you didn't last long. When humans banded together into communities and stopped being nomadic, how did they determine who got what in terms of resources (food and water)? Did they pool their resources and divide it evenly among the group, or did they give more to the individuals or families that produced more? To that end, how did they treat individuals or families that couldn't produce resources for themselves? Were they cast out from the group, or were they supported by the group?

She's doing a research project, and I don't have any resources to help her. Thanks

Hippopotamuses kill more people than sharks, bees kill more, indeed death by horse is the most common animal-caused death in many countries (by falls obviously). I can't help but feel that sharks have gotten a bad rap.

I get the Vatican, he literally created it, but why not San Marino?

Edit: Reddit’s slogan should be “Reddit: People downvote you for asking questions”

The other day is my anthropology class my teacher was talking about shamans and I couldn’t help but think of them were schizophrenics who got praised by people thinking they had powers. This got me thinking about schizophrenics throughout history. Thank you for your time!