Basically title, although I am further interested in a comparison between the Krupp business empire and Elon Musk's own

In the books I've read, I've learned about Jews all over the Continent, from Iberia to Venice to Russia, but I've never read anything specific about Jews in the British Isles. Wikipedia states that our first records of Jews in England and Ireland date back to the late 11th century, with some records in Scotland appearing about 100 years later. Did Jewish communities play an important role in the Isles? What sources might I look at to learn more?

I'm not looking for a specific time period, besides being pre-WWII, so any insight would be appreciated.

1. What do the numbers mean when referring to the size of the gun? For example, on a 16 inch gun, what is the 16 inch referring to?

2. What was different between a 16" gun and a 15" gun, aside from the size? Why would 16" guns make 14" guns obsolete?

3. Can a ship with smaller guns make up for it with more guns? Could a ship with eight 14" guns hold its own against a ship with six 16" guns?

4. Does armor correlate to gun size? Is a ship with 16" armor impervious to ships with 15" or smaller guns?

5. General strategy question: What was the purpose of battleships? Couldn't the enemy just scout and go around it?

[deleted]

Hello Historians!

I am a 25 year old lawyer who is considering a phd in history, specifically political history.

I was a polisci major in undergrad and loved my classes that revolved around the U.S. and Foreign politics, especially the historical side of things.

However, I decided on law school because I felt it was the natural progression of things. I have been out for 2 years and I find myself missing those classes and the research side of them.

I have thought about going back for a PHD but every thing I read online states that it is a bad idea to get a PHD in history. What are your thoughts?

[deleted]

After seeing the devastation in Hiroshima, why did the Japanese not surrender until after the Nagasaki blast?

The first sentence of the preamble:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR ,DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

This may very well be a dumb question, but in an age where music singles can actually be defined as "single pieces of music for sale" and can be easily sold and downloaded online, how did Candle in the Wind get so popular when it was released?

I understand the cultural significance of the song itself and the context of its release, but all I can think is that 1997 was past the era of singles on vinyl (which makes sense for 1 song to take up one side of a small size 45" record) but too early for digital download singles. So all there is is cassette tapes and CDs. But when I think "I want to release a single" I don't think of those two mediums. Cassettes and CDs have the capacity for entire albums, so in my mind it seems like a waste of money/space to make a cassette or CD with only one/maybe two songs on it.

Or an I completely wrong and that is exactly what happened and tens of millions of people simply went out and bought this song as a single on a CD or cassette because that was just the norm for the music Industry at that time and that's just how powerful Princess Diana's death was? Again, perhaps a dumb question, but I just have a hard time understanding how music singles could survive the post-vinyl pre-digital era when CDs and cassettes don't appear to be conducive to the concept of singles, much less produce one of the best-selling ones of all time. Thank you in advance.

We hear a lot of talk about how much meat people in the Western World eat, especially America in the 21st Century. They talk about it's economic, ecologic, and health impacts upon us, so of course now I'm curious about how much we in the West used to eat.

How did we come to eat so much? How and why did it change so much?

I'm not sure this is really answerable, but...was he just the guy trying to be king and a guy who wrote a bit of his own history when he died, or was something unique? Certainly there had been dictators before, and men who conquered more territory. I wonder if so much of his standing in the popular culture is the great sort of final rupture of the Republic following his death moreso than his own individual accomplishments.

I suppose this sort of buts up against "great man or trends-and-forces" arguments and hypothetical belly gazing... But given what had happened over the past generation, the republic was probably going away. Was Caesar indispensable, or do we overestimate his importance versus his contemporaries in modern culture?

The city suffered a major depopulation after the decline of the roman empire, if i remember correctly it went from 1.5 milion to barely 15'000 in 1350 ad, this is a big depopulation.

I (like everyone else) have been watching Game of Thrones. I noticed that in a lot of scenes indoors at night they use candles (obviously) but candles aren't really that bright. Was everything just really dark? Did people use hundreds of candles at a time?

Just like the title, are there any documentaries/videos online that show a good historical perspective on the Korean war? Preferably without a lot of inate propaganda, but I am aware that this may be very difficult.

He claims to have gained them fighting in WW1, is that accurate? Or is he like the Joker, making up stories about them?

I'd like to read the article for myself, but I can't seem to find it easily online. Anyone by chance know the source? Bonus points, can you link to the article? Thanks!

I recently came across one of the letters online and became curious to learn how it survived all these years.

My understanding is that wet climates tend to be bad for the survival of paper notes. I found it surprising that they survived Britain, but I get that it was likely stored someplace dry.

Beyond that, I guess I'm curious whether it's common to save the personal correspondences of kings, generally. Do we know the story of how we came to have these letters today? Were they kept safe by someone with historical foresight? There's got to be a story here, no?

*each other's, techniques

[deleted]

Hello!

I hope I can ask this here... I am watching the Tudors (which I know is not entirely historically accurate), and the servants see and hear so much... So I am wondering if there are any good reads during this time period that was written by a servant? Preferably non-fiction.

Thank you!

While reading The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, a story by H.P. Lovecraft, I came across passages that are intended to read as letters written around 1750/1760. The first of these begins as follows:

Prouidence, I. May (Ut. vulgo)

Brother:

— My honour’d Antient ffriende, due Respects and earnest Wishes to Him whom we serve for yr eternall Power. I am just come upon That which you ought to knowe, concern’g the Matter of the Laste Extremitie and what to doe regard’g yt. I am not dispos’d to followe you in go’g Away on acct. of my Yeares, for Prouidence hath not ye Sharpeness of ye Bay in hunt’g oute uncommon Things and bringinge to Tryall. I am ty’d up in Shippes and Goodes, and cou’d not doe as you did, besides the Whiche my ffarme at Patuxet hath under it What you Knowe, that wou’d not waite for my com’g Backe as an Other.

(from "H. P. Lovecraft: The Complete Fiction" by H. P. Lovecraft)

The letter goes on from there, same style. Written in 1927 by Lovecraft, this is not an original document of course. However, the author probably tried to imitate the way people wrote during that period of time, though I couldn't tell exactly how "authentic" he managed to sound.

Thinking about this while trying to decipher the letters (English is not my first language, plus the spelling is pretty messed up) made me question: How did people learn to write on the 17th and 18th centuries? And more than that, were there any grammar standards back then? It seems that different people words in different ways/however they thought it was right.

What we see in old documents is the result of writers being barely literate and committing mistakes or of a lack of grammar standards?

I read recently on a civil war website that, not only was the first technical slave owner in the 13 colonies a black man, but that free blacks were more likely to own slaves than whites in general. Also there were supposedly white slaves owned by free blacks.

Couldn't find too much about this online, nor could I find anything about the article's author. This is all very interesting to me, though, and I'd love to learn more about its legitimacy.

Thanks, all

The only thing I know was that when the Soviet Union intervened in 1945, they captured Manchuria from the Japanese and gave it to the Communists, allowing them to have a big power base in the area (And of course, North Korea was established after WW2, who helped the Chinese with volunteers and material).

I know that the Japanese fought against both the Republicans and the Communists, but from what I can tell, the Japanese mostly fought the former.