Hi guys! This is about a statistic which I have heard cited a couple times, usually as a precursor for some sweeping conclusions. I'd like to hear some ACW historians weigh in on the statistic's veracity, and (if it is true) its implications and causes.

The statistic is that, during the American Civil War, "only about 50% of soldiers 'actively participated' in warfare". The anecdote supports itself by saying that 'many' muskets were found unfired in the field, nearby the corpses of men who simply were too afraid to shoot their fellow man. It then goes on to say that the modern army has sought to bring this percentage of non-active participants as close to zero as possible; "to make men turn against their nature" by turning them into unflinching killing machines. Accordingly, more veterans today suffer from mental trauma than they ever have historically. The reasoning goes that, since a greater share of soldiers have actively engaged in the intimate/personal killing of another human being, more soldiers suffer from PTSD.

To me, it seems that this is rather reductionist rendition of a more complicated reality, which is then improperly generalized to form an equally-reductionist conclusion. For example, in the ACW, wasn't open-field artillery a major killer? Wouldn't it have made sense for there to be dozens of unfired weapons, since many of the soldiers cut down by artillery would have never gotten within firing range of their targets? I could easily see this skewing the "unfired gun" statistic. In light of that, the implications (unfired gun => deliberate non-participation in warfare => even those who volunteered for the army, when faced with the shocking reality of modern warfare, refuse to engage => modern soldiers, who are actively trained to ignore this disinclination to engage in intimate modern warfare, suffer from PTSD more acutely) seems shaky. And this is before bringing into the conversation all of the other more plausible factors explaining modern PTSD epidemic (higher injury-survival rates, pre-eminence of guerilla warfare pitting soldiers against civilians, higher likelihood of social isolation as a veteran, the list goes on...)

The above counter-argument satisfies me, but I'd feel more comfortable if you all could comment on the statistic and/or subject matter with sources and firsthand accounts. I hope the topic/questions are clear, and I thank you for your time!!

I'm curious because when we hear about someone like admiral Nelson rising to the top, we usually aren't given specific details re: how that happened. I'm assuming it involved a combination of a few of the following factors but would love to learn more:

• bravery
• family connections
• personal wealth
• owning a ship
• years of service
• voted into power
• recommended for a promotion

I would think there might survive some writings that sort of say "uuugh we tried to tell you now a thousand years of poor sanitation and widespread illiteracy are coming." Guessing between about 450-600 CE?

sort of a stupid question its just I've always thought it was something that actually happened but I was thinking, wasn't salt like super valuable? Anyway thanks

So this is just something I thought of earlier; so tons of animals are held sacred by various ancient religions, but I've never heard of any ancient religion venerate insects like they do birds, snakes, etc. Did any ancient religions that we know of hold any particular insects to be sacred? If so, what were the insects symbolic of? Thanks!

so the idea of them from what i heard is that if a man fell in battle that person would be replaced but isnt that how normal infantry ranks worked where if a guy died another would stand where he was, i dont know why they are so well known for this unless im missing somthing

All those years ago, was the environment similar enough to today's that people deported from places like England and the like, would suffer from the severe sunburn they would face today without the luxury of sunscreen?

Pretty much any book on Weimar will discuss political violence, but I often find that to be a side note to either discussions of politics, economy, or culture.

Who was using this violence. I know about the Steel helments, the SA, the Freikorp, the Red Front Fighters' League, in that they exist, but I know nothing else. What was their membership composed of? How did they justify their violence? How successful were they, either in engaging violence or in turning the populace to their side? Were their other groups? How did the members react to engaging in such violence and what were their psychologies?

Was there any international element to the violence? I know there was a Polish-Soviet War, so did any of the Freikorp fight in that? Or the communists for that matter?

Was there heightened police violence in response to paramilitary violence?

Can never seem to get an answer on this. Would owe a reddit life debt to anyone who finally does provide one.

Also I already know the history of drug prohibition in this country. I'm a certified substance abuse counselor and addiction therapist. I'm well versed in all of that so you don't need to get into those details. It's just specifically why the prohibition of alcohol was handled so differently that I never seem to be able to get straight forward info on.

I really appreciate it.

I've come across this idea before in a description by William I's chaplain of England as a "treasure-house of Araby." It's popped up again today in a podcast about the 12th century renaissance, in which it was mentioned that clergy were attracted to the country in the 10th and 12th centuries because posts in England paid well.

Is it the case that England was wealthier than other Western European countries? If so, what accounts for this wealth?

I know it may sound quite like a stupid question, but we often call math "a language", which helps us to understand and express the world around us. However, a spoken language can be expressed with different alphabets or different systems (like deaf-language). My question is whether math has ever been expressed differently (I don't mean roman numerals, for example) than how it is today?

I understand that France and Spain were extremely important in the Revolutionary War and the years following independence, but my US history classes have never once brought up the HRE in any form, not even a passing mention. Were there any formal relations? Or were they too small to even consider?

To clarify: what was the Soviet Union's rational for taking a good chunk of East Prussia for themselves after World War 2 and settling it with ethnic Russians instead of just giving it to Poland like they did with the rest of Germany's land east of the Oder? If they were just after a naval base why did they need to annex the territory to build/use one - from what I understand the Red Army had a pretty heavy presence in Poland during most of the Cold War anyway, so why did Stalin feel like he had to set up a colony in Konigsberg to keep his navy there?

This is a question I've asked myself and my friends a couple of times. Because crossbows and early firearms have a lot of similarities regarding use in medieval times (being able to pierce armour, long range, slow reload times, etc.) why did this not lead to later era tactics, only using crossbows and not early firearms? Or did this happen in some instances, and am I missing something?

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I need some help. I'm a new teacher and I am going to be teaching world history (high school).

My knowledge of Latin American / U.S. / European history is solid. Middle Eastern isn't as good as it could be for about 1100 A.D. - 1700 A.D., but it is serviceable. As for African and Asian history, my understanding is mostly Eurocentric, i.e., I'm familiar with most events from colonialism onwards. The same can be said for Latin American history, but to a lesser extent (and, from what I can tell, our information pre-colonialism is much more sketchy).

Essentially I am looking for resources for African / Asian history. The quicker, the better, but I understand there is only so much summation that can be done.

I really want to be able to do justice to world history but I worry that my education up to this point has been too Eurocentric for me to be a sufficiently able teacher in this area. I know I'll only be able to teach history cursorily in a year-long course covering literally everything, but I want to have enough prior knowledge to be able to give depth when possible and answer questions appropriately. Especially since I'm going to be teaching in a primarily African-American school, I want to be able to teach them properly about Africa. Thank you so much for any and everything!

I see these vague descriptions of some Signoria or Gonfalionere, but tell me in full detail how the actual government was organised, was there an Executive branch and a head judge, a "legislative" branch of nobles, how did the Signoria fit into this, what was the roles of all branches of the government, who was Cosimo de' Medici in government, etc.