[deleted]

I've read on wiki that all the monarchs dating back from George I came from same house ( House of Hanover) which was German royal family (right?). Therefore it makes me wonder what language they were using? Since they were German kings then why didnt they impose German language on UK?

In recent weeks, many commentators have been equivocating 'Antifa' with the neo-Nazis they've been marching against. When pressed, many will shout "they're Communists and they killed 200 million people!!!" or something along those lines. Many of these commentators have been extending this line of thought into history.

I know that historians are supposed to be above such normative slapfights, but it is quite a historical assertion to make, and it seems to be catching on. I'll admit my own stake in this matter; my son was named for his great-grandfather, who was a decorated Partisan who fought the Fascists and then the Nazis after them.

[deleted]

I was wondering the other day about tornadoes in the Midwest and if they've had the same type of cultural impact on Americans as previous peoples who inhabited North America.

I know that there are plenty of records of Native American tribes in the Midwest but I don't know any records of tornadoes in the region. Are there are any profound records showing Native American interpretations of such crazy natural works?

Thanks.

There wasn't really that much time between the two conflicts, so I thought it might be possible, but the little bit of digging that I did didn't turn up with anything.

[deleted]

My understanding is that ancient Egypt maintained essentially the same culture for thousands of years at a stretch. This seems mind bogglingly stable relative to the pace of change not just today but 500 or even 1000 years ago in Europe, Egypt, and elsewhere. Why was their culture so incredibly stable?

What was it like when the first hurricane hit the American colonies? Did they suspect something like that could happen or were they all completely incredulous as to where all this wind and rainappeared from?

Akin to modern day US military uniforms?

I'm very curious on how History research is done. I understand that this is a general question but I am looking for an answer on the mechanics and how it may be started and carried out.

For example in Mathematics Mathematicians prove theorems and develop new theories to solve problems.

So what exactly do Historians do? Do they come up with new ideas or reframe old ideas or connect ideas that already exist?

I am particularly interested in the more specific details of the process. Like where does one start or different thought processes that go on during research. How much time it takes. Things like that.

I have no knowledge of History, so forgive me if this question doesn't really make sense or is something that can't be explained to someone without prior History knowledge.

Thank you in advance.

It appears there was some use of copper tools by the Aztecs and Incas before the Spanish arrived. How common was this and would these societies be considered Chalcolithic (Copper Age) or still primarily Neolithic?

Also what are advantages and disadvantages of both?

Everyone hears about the flying aces or the tank aces, but I don't think I've ever read about the successes of proficient anti-aircraft crews.

I can imagine it being somewhat difficult to determine who shot down that one B-17 among the hundreds of AA guns firing up at a formation of thousands, but more modern conflicts rely less on massed AA fire and more on missiles or accurate self-propelled anti-aircraft guns.

So I've been trying to study up on World War II, and reading a lot of books and forums about it. In one forum I saw, someone said that the European Theaters and Pacific War were pretty much distinct conflicts outside of the United States participating in both.

My questions are the following:

1. Is what this person said true? I know Japan joined the Axis after signing a treaty with Germany, but aside from that was there any communication between the leaders (i.e. Hitler and Hirohito)?

2. Were there any WW2 battles that saw them work together?

3. On somewhat of a side note, did the UK ever send troops to fight the Japanese? I know USSR did at the end with the Manchuria Campaign, but wondering if the UK helped at all.

Thank you all for your help!

Polybius talks about how the Roman formation managed to be more mobile and flexible than the Greek phalanxes of the time and how this helped them to conquer Greece. This idea led me to wonder why Greeks would use phalanxes in the first place. Since approximately 75% of Greece is mountains, why would they rely on such an inflexible formation? This inflexibility means that the Greeks would be basically unable to effectively engage in combat in at least 75% of their country. Furthermore, since Greece is not very resource rich, one would expect any arable plains to be used for farming rather than battlefields. I don't expect someone to have a fully-sourced, absolute answer to this question but I'm wondering if there are any theories on the matter or if some Greek writers talked about the functionality of the phalanx. Thanks for any insight you can provide