My high school history teacher had a plan for a book that he would call "Hemorrhoids in History," about seemingly inconsequential things that would actually have significant historical effects. Sounds fascinating, right?

The basis for this title was that Napoleon's hemorrhoids flared up during the Battle of Waterloo, he retired from the field to seek treatment, and the general who took over proceeded to lose the battle. The resulting change in the balance of power of Europe would set the stage for WWI a century later, which led directly to WWII, and the Cold War. Since he was of the Baby Boomer generation, his hypothesis was that his generation existed as a result of WWII, therefore he was born as a direct result of Napoleon's hemorrhoids.

Is there any truth to the story of Napoleon being removed from the battlefield because of his hemorrhoids?

Back when surnames started to be a thing for everyone, my impression was that you were named after a profession e.g Smith.

There are plenty of Clarks, and some Carvers, and Parkers (although, secondary question, which profession was that?) but no Scribes.

Was it just that Clark was a better umbrella term?

Just a little confused as to why the practice was common enough. Would their vassals be related to them, would they commonly marry into the same family to keep an alliance going?

Like, imagine if I'm the king. Why marry my cousin when I can marry the daughter of another ruler, of another realm? Sorry if my ignorance is cringe worthy.

Additionally, were there any European societies during the same era that were notably better diplomats, and how so?

I know this might be a broad question and I will narrow it down if possible but i have a friend who is constantly arguing that America "won" the Vietnam War.

His reasoning is that America won due to the Peace Accord and the cease fire, even though the south later fell to the north in 1975. I would argue that in no way was it a "won" war because the goal was to prevent the spread of Communism and it didn't prevent that in the end.

What would be a good account of the Russian Revolution that looks at the following:

1. The shift from the February to October Revolution.
2. The killing of the Tsar and its psychological and social ramifications.
3. The psychological and social changes that the Revolution brought on its people. (I think this relates to the "New Soviet Man" but I have heard that more in relation to Stalin.)
4. The shifting ideological goals of the various revolutionaries.
5. The affects of the mass violence of the Russian Civil War.

I realize it is impossible to say for sure what kind of cloth it was, and of course, we cannot be certain that this Biblical scene happened the way the author describes, but the cloth was likely a common fabric from the period. Cloth is an interesting component of material culture and has been used (in the Americas, the area I study) to reveal production, consumption, trade networks, and elements of home and domestic life. Those are actually what I am curious about. What kind of cloth was common in this part of the Roman Empire during the early first century? Where did it come from? How might it have been made or acquired by a poor family of common people? Who might have made it and how? How might it have ended up with that family? The very next verse in the story talks about the shepherds tending their flocks (of sheep? Goats?), perhaps they had a hand in it? Or maybe it was a fibrous plant of some kind used to make the cloth in that region at the time?

I have a love for history but I have always wondered what practical applications a history degree has in terms of finding a job.

The Pacific Ocean was a major theater of World War II. How did occupation by Japanese/American forces, as well as the battles fought between these powers, affect the various peoples of the Pacific Islands? Did Pacific Islanders play any role in the war?

Under Eisenhower, the US took an extremely interventionist approach to foreign policy, toppling governments that were suspected of Soviet sympathy. That’s obviously caused repercussions that were still dealing with today. On the other hand, the Soviet Union was a legitimate threat. Is there a consensus on whether Ike made the right call or whether non-intervention would have been a better move?

Hey all I've wanting to know this for a long time and for a few months now I have been researching this question quite a bit.

I must admit I play a fair bit of Call Of Duty. So that's where this question has sprung from.

Now let's get to the point, I've found sites that claim to show the typical load of various army's around at the time.

One thing that really shocked me is how little they actually carry. As an example of this take the German Army for instance.

A typical Kar98k gunner or Rifleman I've read would have anywhere between 50 to 65 Rounds. This is the minimum load you'd carry as a German soldier during WW2. So I can imagine for low risk activity or operations having between 50/65 Rounds in pockets and one set of 5 Rounds in the gun is not alot.

Doubling it if you include spares would be 100/130 Rounds altogether including backup ammo.

Now that's not alot, so you can safely assume most low danger operations they typically carried anywhere between 100 to 200 Rounds. For each Kar98k Rifleman.

For a Mp40 example the typical load was 6 loaded 32 Round Magazines a total of 192 Rounds. This does not sound alot either. So as for reserves they probably carried 384 rounds altogether Per MP40 gunner.

For the Grewerh 43 for example not sure if I spelt it right. The Typical load was between 100/130 rounds plus reserve. So I imagine anywhere between 200 to 260 altogether.

For MG34 and MG42 Squads it was like I'm sure for 100 round belt clips it was 500 to 600 hundred so altogether 1'000/1'200 rounds altogether per MG34/MG42 guy or gunner. Plus whatever grunt carrys along with them for the MG's.

For 75 round drums they probably carried 450/525 so either 6 or 7 loaded 75 round boxes.

So the Stg 44 I heard variations I heard it's either one of three things depending on the Unit or Operation.

1.) 180+30 rounds in the mag extra. 2.) 180 rounds 3.) 175/200 rounds in 25 round mags.

Double then including spares 350/400 Generally.

Moving on the typical load for US soldiers was.

A Bar gunner varied highly depending on op and warfare scale.

7x20/14x20 so 140/280 typically. Normally was 200/240. So about 300/480 typically altogether.

Thompson depended on Mag capacity. But generally 180/210 rounds. For 50 round magazines it was 4 or 5 I can imagine, 200/250 rounds altogether.

So could be 180 in 20's Rnds mags, 6 or 7 30 Rnd mags. Or could be 4 or 5 50 Rnd mags plus same again in spares. 360/500 Rnds typically.

For Springfields it was generally 60/65 generally. So 120/130 altogether I can I can imagine.

M1 Carbines 120 to 150 I think was the typical loads plus same again in reserve 240/300 altogether.

M1919 Browning it vary's slightly 400/600 rounds typically. 800/1000 altogether.

M1 Garand 80/96 rounds plus 80 or 96 in reserve. So 160/192 rounds altogether.

So I know a few more from like Japanese and my home Country UK. I am by no means a expert and I know these are minimum loads typically.

I also understand they generally have a fire rate or unit of fire which enable's them to be able to fight for hours or a long time anyway. But still does not sound like alot.

I also understand alot of it depends on the task unit or operations that you do. For example I'm sure Vietnam war for the Americans I've heard was a spray and pray war. So they probably carried 600+ Rounds or as many as they could especially special forces I imagined carried as much as they could run with and still be mobile.

But I'm sure for today's soldiers it's normally a little more than old soldiers used to carry.

6 or 7 lots of 30 Rnds for assault rifles M4 or MI6'S for brits the SA80A2 I can imagine is the same. So roughly 300/480 Rounds typically is minimum by today's standards.

And also it depends on how easy it is to supply they unit and the scale. If you were going into hot NAZI red zone areas and hundreds are swarming with only a small squad 4/50 men you'd carry alot. Also if it is deep behind enemy lines and supplys aren't easily guaranteed you'd carry alot more it just depends but normally you'd carry for a certain situations or dangers.

I know in North America and certain countries in Europe where poeple are allowed to use lethal force on average the don't carry alot. Apparently in the USA alot of poeple might only carry one or two full loaded mags for protection not alot actually.

But because of statistical data it is very unlikely you would even need to fire your gun let alone discharge more than 5 or 7 Rounds. In extremely rare self defense situations do you need to fire in double digits.

Probably explains why I heard anywhere between 18 to 36 rounds is typical for a US Cop to carry. For a revolver or something.

For a 6 shot revolver anyway 18/36 rounds.

So can anyone share any veterans knowledge of what they used to carry in Vietnam or in WW2.

I am by no means a expert it's just purely what I've read and researched.

I know alot of US Cops don't carry alot I can imagine.

And also can someone give me a rough estimate of how much ammo Wieghs.

I know Thompsons shoot 45ACP. I know BARS shoot 30.06 or 30 ot 6. MP40 shoot 9mm.

I know M1 Garands shoot .30 Caliber. So how much would say a thousand. 30 Caliber Wiegh?

Any answers please?

I mean this question in the sense of, if you were to walk into an ordinary person's home in this time and place, what material things would be there? How big of a family lived in a house? How was the household laid out?

A Google search reveals only nine results. All of them are pages that list the title of this act. The Parliamentary Archives website lists the act's description as, "An Act for naturalizing Louis Sechehaye, George Frideric [Frederick] Handel, Anthony Fursteneau and Michael Schlegel. [Handel's Naturalisation Act]".

Obviously the main historical events are real, but I’m wondering about the peripheral stuff. E.g How do we know the queen’s opinion on different issues? Is there anything else that is misrepresented?