[deleted]

[deleted]

This might seem like a silly question and it might be the wrong thread for it, but I recently visited the National Museum of American History and I kept getting this weird feeling that all the period garments on display, with the exception of George Washington's suit, looked smaller than they should. Is it just me? Were people smaller back in the day? Did the clothes shrink during the preservation process? Did the clothes on display just come from smaller people rather than larger people?

This also kinda goes for the museum of Natural History in the taxidermy and bone exhibits, but presumably that's because either the specimens are just smaller animals (size of animals varies a lot), or I'm used to large than lofe presentations of these animals in films and on TV.

[deleted]

Zangger seems to believe so. How are taken his views in the current scholarship?

I was reading about the paratroopers flying into Normandy, and recounting all of the battleships and transports crossing the channel, and I began to wonder if they bombarded the beaches with the battleships before they landed the transports.

It seems like a waste of a lot of lives if they could have destroyed many of the defenses on the beaches before the soldiers landed on shore.

Anyone have any information on this?

Hello! First, some background: I have been doing research for a historical fiction book set in the early 1700s, and though most of what I've been looking for has been available online or in books, information on this particular topic has not been easy to find. I know that, when Spain settled South America, many Spanish men had children with Native American women, and those children were commonly called mestizos.

My question is: did mestizos ever end up moving to/living in Spain? If so, how? Why would they want to move in the first place? How were they regarded within Spain's social structure as opposed to Latin America's? If you have any additional information or sources regarding this topic, I would love to see it.

Thanks!

I was reading about the history of the M2 Browning, Basically the military originally adopted the water cooled M1921 BMG. Think a M1917 scaled up to .50, wheras the air cooled M2 would be a M1919 scaled up. but until the introduction of the M60 the Army and Marines use the water cooled M1917 instead of switching over entirely to air cooled machine guns. So it doesn't seem like they had a problem using water cooled machine guns.

Hi there,

This is my first post here so if I do something wrong, please correct me.

I'm highly interested in anything about the second world war and anything that has to do with it. The last few week I've been reading/watching a lot about the holocaust and thought to myself there would be a subreddit about it. I searched r/holocaust only to discover that the place is filled with holocaust deniers/critics. There is absolutely no arguing with these people and it makes me pretty sad that such a terrible event is disgraced in that way. Now my question: how do you deal with these people and what do you think about holocaust deniers/critics?

I like a good discussion about certain historic happenings, but the Holocaust is a deeply tragic event that shouldnt be doubted.

P.S. English is my second language, as you might have guessed.

Why did the first kings of england to claim dominion of the island title themselves as rex anglorum instead of rex saxonum when they were west saxons?

I'm currently studying History and Politics. I'm trying to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict and form my own opinions. However, obviously, no source on it is impartial and it's such a detailed subject that's its hard to understand it well enough to form opinions.

Can anybody suggest two different history books on the Arab Israeli-Conflict? One from an Israeli/Right Wing/Zionist point of view, or that is written by somebody with Israeli sympathies, but is still a factual and reasonable book. And one from a Palestinian/Left Wing/Anti-Israel point of view, or that is written by somebody with Palestinian sympathies, but is still a factual and reasonable book. Obviously, I understand the issue is slightly more complicated that that, but you probably understand what I'm asking.

Thanks.

Did this idea make its way from one people to the other or is it rooted in their ancestors(Proto-indo-european)?

Even now the only way for one to obtain Renner or yeast is to purchase it. There is no east home recipe for these, so where did the ancient bakers get yeast and cheese makers rennet? This might include any other ingredient they obtained through outdated ways (not export/import).

Essentially what I am asking is: did the founders believe the 2nd Amendment have limits? Would a constitutional originalist be in favor of allowing unrestricted use of nuclear weapons to the public?

This question came to mind as I am a massive fan of the Assasisns Creed franchise and have recently been replaying "Rogue" which is set in the Seven Years War, with this game acting as a prequel to ACIII which is set in the American Revolution.

So I've become curious.

With the historical Seven Years War what was their impact on the American colonies and how much did this impact tie in, or not tie in, to the events which would later occur during the Revolution?

Were there any particular sentiments that arose in the Seven Years War which helped contribute to the Revolution?

Did the alliances with Native Americans built in the Wars affect the Revolution?

We're there any significant progresses made for the rights of colonists and Natives during the Wars?

Were key battles in the Wars necessary to the eventual Revolution?

Or did the Seven Years War ultimately have little affect on the American War of Independence?

Hope this question isn't to broad or to specific and I look forwards to your replies.

The Great Pyramids in Egypt being colossal rock structures would act as great vantage points, so I am wondering as to whether or not there were ever wars where the pyramids were a critical point. I am mainly wondering about wars that have taken place in the last 200 years.

A dish with supposedly German influences with a side of supposedly Franco-Belgian influences with an American drink seems normal now, but was it always considered normal?

Gods such as odin, sobek, anubis, poseidon etc...

also sorry for my bad english, not my first language

It is largely uncontroversial to treat the later Byzantine Empire as a direct continuation of the Roman Empire, despite it having a different religion, language, territorial center, culture, and administration than the image generally thought of in it's namesake. You might even get a pass for rolling the Latin Empire into the larger Roman story.

By all the rules that let you conflate the Byzantine Empire with the Roman Empire, the Ottomans have a much stronger claim than the Holy Roman empire ever did (not that anyone pretends they were). This includes the leader having the title of Cesar recognized by a major church body.

Has this question been addressed by minds in the early modern period or by historians since? Have there been instances of reluctant or willing acceptance of this fact by the powers that be?