I was luckily enough to visit the Uk for a week on Holiday and got to stay in a semi-restored cottage built in the late 16th century. I'm 6,2 and the doorway was tiny, as well as the ceiling level in the main quarters of the cottage. I had to hunchback my way through the holiday.

Along with this I got to visit Shakespeares home and other similar houses from the period and the beds were also really small. It seems like the English at the time were practically midgets? From what I understand the genetics of their population is mainly Anglo-Saxon/Celtic, which of course was always stated in antiquity to be fairly large people compared to the Romans for instance.

Citing from my ignorance on what may be going on here, or whatever ulterior motive there may be for small doorways, ceilings and beds. I also remember an answer talking about diet as well, and how substantial meat was introduced to Japan at some point which shot up their average height to some degree.

If this is because of the size of the people at the time, was it something to do with the diet at the time? I also am unaware of any substantial influence on Roman genetics into the English population.

The 60's have a reputation for being heavy smokers, but the 40's and 50's don't quite have the same reputation, what caused smoking to become almost universal in the 60's?

I just got a gift card for Amazon and I want to get some solid reading material with it. Is there a good, comprehensive (hopefully academic) biography of Ulysses S. Grant that a historian would recommend? I really want something that combines his army career, skill/technique/review of his time as Commanding General for the Union, and a breakdown of his time as President.

Basically, I want something more than just stating what he did, where. I want...analysis, I guess? Something with more context than a plain biography. Is there such a book out there that historians would agree is great for learning about Grant and his place in history?

Or was the concept of an hour much more fluid than now? Were all hourglasses slightly inaccurate and no one was bothered?

Hi everybody,

I was just wondering if you could please tell me what goods were taxed in the British West Indies in the early 18thC. Slaves? Sugar? Etc. And how, or if, that tax was transported back to Britain? Was it the Royal Navy escorting 'treasure' ships?

Many thanks in advance,

Michael

I was thinking about it tonight, but in all the reading I've done on the American Civil War, espionage is never mentioned. They have the same language, the same culture, you'd be relatively familiar with the other side's dialect, and likely have lots of contacts on the other side. It wasn't uncommon for Southern aristocrats to go to college up north, and many of them were officers of the Confederacy.

Was it ever used?

I saw this in another r/AskHistorians thread, and it piqued my interests.

Crisco is Kosher. Rabbi Margolies of New York, said that the Hebrew Race had been waiting 4,000 years for Crisco. It conforms to the strict Dietary Laws of the Jews. It is what is known in the Hebrew language as a "parava," or neutral fat. Crisco can be used with both "milchig" and "fleichig" (milk and flesh) foods. Special Kosher packages, bearing the seals of Rabbi Margolies of New York, and Rabbi Lifsitz of Cincinnati, are sold the Jewish trade. But all Crisco is Kosher and all of the same purity.

Did many companies try to get these endorsements?

I'm mostly curious about time units. 60s=1min, 60min=1hr, etc. Was that always a thing? Were Romans measuring time in same way (I'm not asking about calendar) as we do today? Were they measuring time in same way as their contemporaries in other parts of the world? When was the concept of measuring time itself invented?

It seems obvious that the shapes of one's left and right feet are different, and therefore the shapes of the shoes should be different too. Why wasn't it that way until recently? I would understand if poor people didn't have shoes with different shapes, but this seems to be true of the shoes of kings as well.

I've always been taught that the reason why Ireland had the troubles is ultimately due the English invading, dividing up the land, and then ruling feudal systems from London. Is this the true story? If so, why didn't Scotland go down the same route as Scotland was also invaded by the English

I remember reading that Cape Cod was called Cape Cod because there was so many cod fish you could reach in with your hand and catch one. There seems to be a lot of other stories like that which suggest the New World and the more remote parts of the ocean where teeming with life. Of course fish numbers have gone down recently due to overfishing but is it really that dramatic of a decrease?

All I know is that they were excluded, I dont know why, was it because of political reasons or something else?

TLDR: Looking for my own interest. Trying to find any article or information on a 4-star general Stevens who was in charge of the MPs at the Nuremberg Trials. Forgetting his first name for the moment.

(unnecessary bit)

I know it's not much information to go on. Gen Stevens is my great grandfather if what my grandfather is telling me is correct. My grandfather is making it a habit to forget things and his house is a mess so I can't find any details or records to satisfy my curiosity.

I've noted that the term "Dark Ages", used to describe the period from roughly 500-1000 CE, is not very accurate, and is usually frowned upon. That I can understand, but what were the long term and short term negative impacts of the fall of the western Roman Empire, especially in the terms of human welfare, demographics, scientific innovation, economic growth, and cultural expression?

Did Europe just keep ticking along, or was there, if not darkness, a dimming for a while?

I've been watching Ken Burns' new Vietnam documentary. They talk a little bit about the French occupation of the country but they don't really explain why the French thought keeping Vietnam was so important.

If information wasn't transferred near instantaneously, how would clients know how much other people were buying/selling shares for?

And wouldn't there be significant time lag between different brokers exchanging shares with each other to meet their clients' needs?

I'm playing Civ 6 now and starting to understand geopolitics a bit better, like why a powerful landlocked country would desperately want access to the sea all year round. Just wondering if any powerful people also play it, or is real life civ enough for them?

Edit: I'm specifically interested in civ-style computer games, Command and Conquer and similar also counts.

In the old Hebrew bible, it has no mention of hell. However, in the English translations it seems hellfire is painted through the book.