The Romans and Egyptians had scissors, but it isn't immediately obvious that they could be used for such tasks at the time.

I do understand the reasoning to blame Germany alone(Which is highly debatable) for WW2, but suddenly I realized that I myself have always just agreed with the statement that "Germany is responsible for two world wars" without ever thinking it further. The WW1 was a cluster of different alliances and afaik it went something like this: Serbian activist shot the king of Austria-Hungary who then declared war on Serbia. Russia joined Serbia as it had guaranteed the independence of all the slavic countries and Germany honored its alliance and joined the other side.

Then the argument that has at least some ground, Germany declaring war on France. Though, researching further I learned something along these lines went through: "l. They ordered France to hand over the fortresses of Verdun (yes, that Verdun) and Toul to German occupation, as a guarantee France would not join the war. They promised to give the fortresses back once they'd defeated Russia, The French, as you'd expect, treated this proposal with the contempt it deserved."

While its understandable France wouldn't accept this, it's naive to think France and UK would of stayed out nevertheless. UK was infuriated by Germany's growing military and economic power which is further proven by them declining peace after Russia was defeated. Germany had not had a single soldier step on their ground and offered a status quo. Obviously UK just wanted destruction of Germany.

It is a long post, but it would be nice to get some insight from more knowledgeable people, and is the reason Germany is seen as the main "bad guy" just because of the old saying: "Winners write the history."?

Do we have any evidence, or at least a historical guess, as to what happened? It seems really odd that 2,000 ships, along with the emperor of Mali, would just straight up disappear.

Considering they sailed from the west coast of Africa, could they have reached America?

There is Downton Abbey season 1 suggesting it happened in England, and I supose people wouldn't let such a good alternative to avoid pregnancy pass.

If so, one could be propelled to ask how people in very sex repressive societies could get to know that anal sex was something pleasurable, possible and didn't lead to big tummies.

Hello, i'm trying to find information of the penetration capabilities/effectiveness of tank and anti-tank guns in WW2 against pillboxes made of reinforced concrete (e.g. german Regelbau pillboxes).

So far i've only found one account that said the Flak 41 with AP round supposedly had around 1m penetration @500m against concrete - but its not specified if just regular concrete or reinforced.

Can anybody help?

Hi there! My main mission is finding historians that back up each of the three main reasons I have (hopefully correctly) identified from my preliminary research - Franco's political mastery & the Nationalists' better overall military strategy, Republican disunity and weaker military power, and the way foreign intervention or lack thereof exacerbated both sides' respective strengths and weaknesses. In particular, I am trying to find articles or excerpts from books that I can access online - this research is part of my coursework, and I need to find supporting quotes as well as provide analysis of the situation. I have the gist of these three reasons down, but I am just in need of specific quotations. It looks like Beevor mainly posits the Republican weakness view, and likewise Preston seems to be on the side of foreign intervention being most significant - these may be wrong assumptions, as I have based them on just some skim-reading, so please correct/add to these if appropriate.

While I am mainly looking for sources, I would be more than happy to read any further analyses and things I may have missed in answer to my main question - I am very interested in this period besides my school work, so I look forward to learning more.

Thanks in advance :)

My history teacher recently told us that Marco Polo was a made up man who's stories were actually a collection of other people and that there was never really an explorer named Marco Polo. Is there any truth to this?

If so, what were the pillars of said identity? And if there wasn't one, how did the identity of post-1871 Germany (strictly referring to the German Empire here, not Weimar or the Third Reich) come about? And final question: how does the Holy Roman Empire fit into German history? I know it can't be seen as a predecessor to the idea of "Germany" but I'd like to know its legacy and meaning for the German Empire and its character/identity.

I've recently come across the war diary of my great uncle. Despite being an Army Reserve officer, he was given command of a platoon in the 8th Machine Gun Company of the 5th Marines. This seems kind of weird to me, but maybe it happened all the time back then. Thanks.

I know after them it was very Hellenized but how much like Greece was it in early antiquity? Was it an offshoot of Greece or a neighbor that eventually became similar?

From S.A. Handford's translation of the War in Gaul, VII.46:

"...the Romans soon reached the wall, climbed over, and captured three of the camps- so quickly that Teutomarus, king of the Nitiobroges, was surprised in his tent, where he was taking his siesta, and only just managed to escape, naked to the waist and riding a wounded horse, from the soldiers who entered in search of plunder."

Marx talks about how capitalism swept away the old order and replaced it with new social codes and what not.

But why was capitalism necessary to bring about industrialisation. Surely somebody could have thought up machines before the rise of a monetary economy, and had them implemented?

I know that while some of the founding fathers owned plantations with hundreds of slaves, while others were violently opposed to the institution of slavery. How did the latter reconcile themselves with allowing slavery in the American constitution? How much debate took place over the issue? Was it comparable to the amount of debate we see in the Federalist Papers?

There are many people (not so much in the media, but more like local politicians and Facebook pundits) stating that many Confederate Memorials were put up in the 1960's as a way of reinforcing segregation. However I can't really find any list to either prove or disprove this assertion.

I don't really think this is true, I think the golden age was from about 1900 through WW1. But I could be wrong.

Could anyone enlighten me with some facts?

Is there a comprehensive list of all the Civil War memorials with the date of completion?

I've seen the following quote floating around Reddit and the internet recently, and I was wondering if I could get some historical verification or context on it.

"There is a terrible war coming, and these young men who have never seen war cannot wait for it to happen, but I tell you, I wish that I owned every slave in the South, for I would free them all to avoid this war."

I can't find a primary source for this quote, and I'm pretty skeptical that Lee would say this, given his racially tinged views. If any could give any insight into the origins of this quote, either real or fake, it'd be much appreciated!

Was it because he annoyed the studio heads for being too independent? Is there any research on this?

I’m wondering whether the Romans captured Africa, did they discriminate against them or were they treated like every other region that was conquered. If they were treated the same, when did Africans look inferior to other societies?

Currently sitting in my house in Houston, TX while hurricane Harvey rages outside. Thought just struck me of how an Indian village would be able to deal with something similar.