Okay, this is my first real post on Reddit. I've been googling for a good portion of the day, and I searched on here and couldn't find an answer.

Context: I'm writing a historical fiction novel about piracy in 1717-1718. A huge hard science fiction (read: Andy Weir) fan, I wanted to try to nail the details as accurately as I could, and if not, nail the mood and tone.

So, I'm quite a ways into this book, and I realize that I have no idea what day-to-day life in Nassau would be. Several captains at the time spent countless days just chilling, apparently, before setting sail and going off for raids.

I do have the book "The Republic of Pirates" by Colin Woodard, but it doesn't get into specifics.

If anyone knows any of the following, or have a best educated guess, I would be incredibly interested in hearing it:

Being a free republic, but still trading with Hog Island / Bahamas, did pirates, privateers, and old townsfolk of Nassau pay for things? Did they eat only fish they'd catch, or did they rely on pirates to come back with barrels of pork and beef? Where did residents get their money, through trade only? "I caught this fish, I'll trade for that fabric."

Did any taverns or alehouses have their own imported alcohol, or again, did they rely on buying stolen alcohol from pirates? Did the pirates just give the citizens stuff like booze, food, clothing from their own plunders?

Thanks in advance, and sorry if this was posted in the wrong spot. I greatly appreciate any help with my book.

Could you recommend a good introduction book about life during stone-age in different cultures, from origin of man up until the first civilizations? Preferably from a world history point of view. I've had problems finding a good one.

I just heard a podcast about the Allies (who I discovered were, from 1942, actually officially called the United Nations!), and the official war crimes division which was set up from 1942 onwards. The podcast mentioned that they appointed special warcrimes investigators to go behind enemy lines and salvage any documents or evidence which could be used in war crime trials after the war. I was wondering if Nazi Germany, or Japan, or any of the Axis powers, had any similar system set up? Did they deem the Allies to be committing similar "war crimes"? If so, how did they define them?

I've heard the 8.8 cm Pak 43 and 8.8 cm KwK were excellent guns for the time and could deal with nearly any allied armour in it's day, even giving the Soviet IS-1s and IS-2s trouble. The Pak 44 seems a bit overkill IMO. I'd just like some info from reliable sources and qualified people.

Edit: I'd also like to know why the Germans went with the odd calibre sizes, i.e. 37mm instead of 40mm, 47mm insead of 50mm,88mm instead of 90mm, 105mm instead of 100mm,and 128mm instead of 130mm

I notice modern artistic resistance to movies being seen only on the small screen, e.g. streaming service produced movies. The Cannes Film Festival has effectively banned Netflix movies for instance.

I wonder if such resistance has existed to previous movie technology.

I know The Name of the Rose isn't an actual history of the events of 14th century Benedictine monasteries or anything, but the fact that Brother William's lens are seen as magical got me thinking.

What would've been like for me:

(A) before corrective lens were available, (or) (B) once corrective lens were available, but I still couldn't afford them?

How would poor vision (but not blindness!) affect my life and options, as opposed to life blind back then?

I have a debate on this question and my team is on the con side. We are struggling with this topic and finding evidence that supports us. Any help would be appreciated

In Eric Christiansen's Northern Crusade, he makes the point that membership in the Tuetonic Order went along with many of the hardships of the monk's life (strict social and behavioral regulations) along with those of the knightly life (death, etc), and that while the monastic vows were not perfectly followed they were taken seriously. He also noted that at least in the first century they drew from a very wide number of social bases, from lords to merchants, which made me wonder what the biographical details of the individuals were who voluntarily chose such a difficult life.

Bernard of Clairvaux extolled the military orders because they provided the chance to follow typical knightly pursuits for a godly cause, and a redemption for those who had shed blood for worldly causes. Was this generally persuasive (to pt a slightly romantic gloss on it, were many of the recruits former soldiers who felt the needed to atone for participation in secular wars)? Did the recruits tend to be veterans or young men looking fr a proving ground? Was there something like the stereotype of unpromising children being sent to the monastery?

I can't seem to find a concrete answer on this matter. Some sources say he realised he had found new land (Which is false, since he swore he had landed in Asia all the way to his grave). Other sources say he thought he landed in The East Indies, Japan, Or China.

Most sources claim he thought he landed in Japan, but as I said, the sources vary on this matter, and they never seem to show concrete proof that Columbus thought this.

So, I come to you /r/AskHistorians. Where did Columbus THINK he had landed when he landed in Cuba?

Basically was the society after Lombard conquest in Italy primarily Roman or Germanic? It seems that all the people in Italy were called Lombards.

I'm aware that a good deal of Europeans lived in Africa, but there was never any great influx of white settlers who stayed post-independence. The only exception I suppose would be South Africa, but unlike the Americas or Australia, it never became wholly European in culture or ethnicity. What was the reason Africa was left alone while other continents were settled?

Im interested in Muslim Andalucian occupation. What book is recommended to read regarding the above?

[deleted]

I read in Gerhard Weinberg's book A World at Arms: A Global History of WW II that Molotov sent a note to the Germans in autumn 1940 as a feeler to gauge German interest in the Soviets joining the Tri-Partite Pact but never received a response as Hitler had already decided on the invasion. Is this true?

I was looking at a Pulitzer Prize photo gallery, and the 1942 Photo was from a strike going on at the Ford Plant in early 1941. This, of course, predated American entry into the war, but it nevertheless got me wondering how Unions, Workers, and the Labor Movement, generally, dealt with the war. Was there some sort of agreement, official or otherwise, to put serious matters on hold in light of the exigencies of the war effort? What sort of collective bargaining activities, if any, continued during that period, and how successful were they?

And how soon after the end of the war did things return to 'normal'? Or even, depending on how things went in the above questions, was there long term effects of the war years on how labor relations continued in the US?