In a lot of video games, longswords are wielded with one hand. Were they effectively used like that in real life by people who weren't exceptionally strong, or is that a fantasy creation? If the latter is true, what is the longer-than-regular sword that can be wielded with one hand? Did it even exist?

As a tennis fan, I know that when a right handed player faces a left handed one, there's an element of unfamiliarity that could help the left handed guy win the game.

And that got me thinking about ancient battle, and how a soldier typically holds a sword in his right hand and a shield in his left, and when facing another right handed guy, each sword will be facing a shield.

But what if it was a left handed guy facing a right handed one? Then you'd have both shields on one side, and both swords on the other. Wouldn't that usually throw the right handed guy off because he wouldn't know how to protect himself against an inverted attack? I'm assuming the left handed guy would know what to do because he's training on facing right handed guys all the time.

Is there any historical data or any reports that mention a soldier facing this issue? Was it ever reported as an advantage or a disadvantage during battle? Or did the left handers simply conform and fight right handed to maintain a uniform military?

Thank you

Lithuania declared independence on March 11, 1990, but the Soviet Union and the international community didn't recognize it until September 1991, making the period in between a limbo period where Lithuania was sort of its own country and sort of a Soviet SSR at the same time. It was self-governing, but still under Soviet military occupation and not considered part of the community of nations.

The pro-independence government governed Lithuania from this point on, but there was still a strong Soviet military presence, and the USSR considered their border checkpoints illegal and would dismantle them from time to time. The Soviet Army also invaded a radio station and killed some protesters in January 1991.

I'm pretty sure that the ethnic Russians were not given Lithuanian citizenship, and thus would have still identified as Soviet subjects.

I have some questions. Was capitalism immediately commenced after Lithuania's declaration of independence, or was the country still functioning under a socialist system for some time afterwards? Was Lithuania capable of trading with Western countries without Soviet interference? Did Soviet travel restrictions still affect Lithuanians? Was Lithuania still part of the Soviet banking system and using the ruble? Did some Soviet institutions still function in Lithuania even after independence was declared, or was Sajudis able to shut them all down?

What other sovereignty situation could you compare Lithuania in 1990-91 to? Was it a rebellious, self-governing but ultimately illegitimate regional regime like the Confederate States of America? Was it a "de facto" independent state like Taiwan, almost fully meeting the requirements for a "real country" and qualified only by the international community being reluctant to identify it as truly sovereign due to another powerful country's claim on it?

I've heard it said before that the Postmodern era began in 1990 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the invention of the World Wide Web.

I think you could definitely make the case that the invention of the Web/popularization of the PC and the opening of global markets in the early 1990s could be seen as the beginning of a second Renaissance, much the same way that the discovery of the New World and the invention of the printing press is seen as the beginning of the first Renaissance and the modern era.

Francis Fukuyama famously made the claim that history itself ended in 1989, but I would rather argue that an era of history ended - particularly what we call Modernity, lasted from about 1492 to 1989 give or take a few years depending on the social class and geographical location.

I imagine that future historians will study times before 1990 in a different fashion, and with less certainty than post-1990 times, because of direct documentation by ordinary people with social media, digital cameras, etc. Anything before the Internet Age will be comparatively mysterious to people in the future relative to times where the Internet was widely used. It will most likely be incredibly easy for people even in the far future to have an idea of what life was like in the 1990s onward (and especially from 2005-2010 onward) due to digital documentation by people from all walks of life, while sources for earlier times will be paltry in comparison and heavily biased due to the comparative rarity of being on camera and the lack of "spontaneous" social media posts.

I think the universality that capitalism has taken since the end of the Cold War and the digitally propagated Americanized pop monoculture that now characterizes human society renders us as living in a fundamentally different epoch than we lived in 30 years ago. In some ways the 1980s has more in common with the late 15th century than it does with today, in terms of how people accessed information, geographical mobility and the manner in which the history of those times was documented.

We're seeing massive changes in society, such as the slow end of nationalism and racism (and to some extent, even nations and races themselves as people intermarry, adopt elements of American culture and learn English), an extremely rapid decline of religious faith and power in favor of secular "creeds" such as humanism, meritocracy and social justice, a very gradual transition from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society (which admittedly is still far less than halfway through), a climate system that is becoming unrecognizable due to human industry, and a material culture that is dominated by international supply chains and is magnitudes more complex than anything witnessed in previous times.

Lastly, like during the Renaissance, art is taking on new meanings. You have elaborate and new forms of art that are often interactive like fanfiction, live action role playing games, 3D computer animation and cosplaying that are distinctly postmodern in character.

What do you think? Am I overestimating the changes of the past generation?

Furthermore, how long did it take for Christians to outnumber Jews?

While ago I watched a documentary that said when Nicolas II finally decided to abdicate, he wanted his brother to take the crown but he did not want it for some reason. And that Nicolas' only son was too ill and young to also take it. As a result of those two being unable to become Czar, the monarchy ended.

Why couldn't one of his daughters take it? Olga was 21, definitely not as young as her brother. What about anyone in the extended family?

Would the people have been against a woman ruling, even with Empress Catherine the Great in their history books?

Were the protests anti-monarch or just anti-Nicolas?

Or did they just want the war to end and to have food?

Did the Duma have a say?

Was the documentary wrong?

In any form -- was there a movement of hebrews from ancient Egypt to Isreal? Regardless of the legend of Moses or Ramses II -- did an exodus happen? Is there evidence that Egypt used hebrew people as slave laborers? What is the kernal of truth in the abrahamic myth system regarding exodus? When did written stories of an exodus first appear?

Maybe I'm taking the phrase "ironclad" too literally, but I was wondering if this was ever an issue during the development of naval armor. Is there some sort of detailed metallurgical history of the development of seawater-proof iron?

^^^^^I'm ^^^^^just ^^^^^asking ^^^^^for ^^^^^a ^^^^^friend, ^^^^^I'm ^^^^^totally ^^^^^not ^^^^^an ^^^^^early ^^^^^19th ^^^^^century ^^^^^British ^^^^^admiral.

Like was there a ceremony or custom some sect of a population or family (Group D) would do and the group that cried witch (Group N) was actively trying to take out for:

1. family in fighting
2. economic (owed money)
3. personal fights between ppl in the same community
4. misunderstanding of a custom or game

If 4) then how prevalent was this reason and has anyone examined what those customs actually were?

Guess I'm looking for a book even if it's a primer on the reasons for witchcraft. I'm pretty sure the only thing we ever learned about it in grade school was watching and reading The Crucible. Don't remember much now other that in 9th grade I didn't really understand how someone could call someone else a witch in the 9th grade. Seemed so irrational and it was never seriously covered in American history.

Thanks!

Alright so I was in my us history class today, and my prof showed us a pic of a a guy holding onto a man who about to be sold a slave, and apparently he was tasting the man to find out how old he was and if he was healthy. The one thing I wanna know is why did they taste them and if it actually worked

Is it correct that he wanted to find an alternative route to India?

So when he did reach America, did he think he was in India because I've also heard that he thought he had reached Japan? Why was "Indian" coined as a term for Native Americans, if he thought he was in Japan?

My understanding is that Grant allowed the soldiers to keep sidearms and turn in rifles, cannons, etc and then disband. Are there any first person accounts of how this took place? Were most of Lee's men from Virginia and just had an easy trek back home? Was it a lengthy process? It is hard for me to fathom 28,000 men leaving a rural area all at once and just "going home". First post here so please let me know if I need to edit or provide more detail. Thanks!

I know that a significant number of gay males were killed in the Holocaust, and lesbians were also discriminated against, though I've read they were not specifically targeted for elimination like gay males were, though someone said to me that lesbians were sometimes labeled "antisocials" and became Holocaust victims for that reason - is that true? Did the Nazis kill anyone solely for being lesbian?

Did the Nazis have a policy of wanting to kill every homosexual, the way they wanted to eliminate Jews, Gypsies and the mentally ill? Or was it more a case of them making an example out of certain people?

Did they tolerate homosexuality in their own ranks sometimes, like if the person was important to the party? Or was it automatic ground for dismissal and punishment if it was known?

I've been talking to a guy, and he has repeatedly claimed that the German invasion of Poland was due to Polish mistreatment and murder of Germanic people in Poland. How much truth is there in this claim?

Are his books a reliable source for those looking for the basics of Western history?

A few specific points of interest:

Did Washington ever veto a bill? If so, what was it over, how did Congress take it, and was his veto ever overridden?

Did Washington ever issue an executive order in response to Congress NOT passing certain legislation?

How involved was Washington in the legislature? Did he push and help form bills the way a modern president does?

Was Congress controlled by an opening faction during Washington's tenure? If so how well did they work together?