Lincoln also lost New Jersey and Delaware, but in a very close race in both states. Why was Kentucky such an outlier?

I assume this has something to do with the debate about continuation of the war, and that Kentuckians, who had seen fierce fighting by 1864, were unwilling to continue the war under a Republican administration and were keen to McClellan's approach of possible dialogue with the South. However, West Virginia went overwhelmingly pro-Lincoln, and had seen its own large share of fighting as well. That makes it seem like an incomplete explanation.

And why did they move out of the Tower, anyway?

[deleted]

Hey there, AskHistorians. I know that there supposedly have been earlier "discoveries" of North America by some Viking and Chinese seafearers before the time of Christopher Columbus, even if they did not result in permanent seettlements like we know them from the European settlers after 1492. But looking at a map I always wondered why the sea route from the west has not been discovered before the route over the Atlantic, since the distance between Siberia and Alaska is just 85km or 53 miles. What are the historical reasons for North America not beeing discovered by Russian or Asian settlers from the west before 1492?

Edit: My question is not about the genetic origin of Native Americans. My question regards permanent colonial settlements that were in contact with their country of origin. Just like the American colononies after 1492 were in contact with Portugal, Spain or England. Why were the Americas not discovered by the Western sea route by Asian powers that stayed in contact with their homelands? This route to America seems to be much shorter and the shorter distance to Siberia in perticular makes it seem strange to me that Russia in particular did not North America before the European powers.

I'm not talking about revolutions like the Industrial Revolution, or the Russia Revolution, I'm talking about smaller revolutions, like the Cuban Revolution, the Islamic Revolution (In Iran) or the Revolution of the Park. What is the difference between those kinds of revolutions and the Kapp Putsch, or the 1930 coup in Argentina?

I feel like pies are an English thing that America got from us. It seems crazy to me though that they took on desert pies (and probably in truth eat more sweet pies than we do, there's not many things more American than apple pie) but why not savoury pies? I'm sure you can get a good steak pie in America but they're no where near as prevalent. If I had to guess maybe it's something to do with the way America butchers animals (I know in England we used to butcher more based on getting the most out of the animal whereas America is more about time efficiency).

Obviously there was a limit to the amount of armour that could be on the tank, due to weight and cost considerations amongst other things. Unlike many other tanks of the era, the t-34's front hull armour was not thicker than the sides or rear of the tank. Why did the designers not move some of this armour to the front of the tank where it was presumably most likely to be hit in combat? Why did they consider a uniform armour thickness to be optimal?

Edit: I am asking about why the Soviet engineers who designed the t-34 decided to have a uniform thickness to the hull, rather than placing more armour frontally and less to the side and rear. I am not asking about the concept of sloped armour, which is redundant given the t-34's armour was sloped at the front, side, and rear of the hull.

Bonus question: how did West Berlin work if it was divided into three zones, each run by the three major Allied powers?

I have heard that in medieval times people would sew themselves into their clothes to retain heat. Is there any truth to this and if so where was this commonly done?

Apparently, there was a period of time (Wikipedia says 618-842 CE) in which the Tibetan Plateau and a significant portion of land outside it was united under a single empire. After a civil war, the plateau was never again unified. What kind of mark or significance did the Tibetan Empire have on human history? Would anything have changed should it persisted past its end in some form or other?

It would make sense at first glance since it would differentiate Han women from Manchu ones, but the Qing dynasty had made Manchu fashion compulsory for all Chinese men with the hair queue and Manchu robes for officials so why did they allow the practice to continue?

When and why did cow become beef? Lamb and mutton instead of sheep? Pork and ham for pig and why did chicken stay as chicken?

I was looking at a map of the Roman Empire and what struck me was the fact that the borders seem so precisely defined. But remember, there were no accurate maps, no GPS, no satellites to provide people in those times with detailed images of the Earth. How accurately marked were borders ? How were they marked in desert, jungle or other sparsely inhabited areas? What happened when two neighboring states had "overlapping" borders, due to their inexact definition?

I know a lot of it was sent to the front lines in order to increase the alertness/energy-level/ability of the soldiers, but what happened once those soldiers came home? Somewhat-related, I know that the methamphetamine that was synthesized in the 1990s in the US after the government started to crack down on the precursors to methamphetamine was called "Nazi-style." Was there a particular way that the drug was manufactured there? Or is this term just used because methamphetamine was fairly ubiquitous during the Third Reich?