[I posted this before hoping that it would spark a lot of conversation but unfortunately it didn't so I'll try one more time.]

I recently made a DNA test. My father was from Sierra Leone and I found out something quite extraordinary: from his side of the family I had 1% Papuan and 1% Native American from the Amazon. As we all know, these were not places from which people travelled to other countries or continents. How on earth could a Papuan from Oceania or an Amazonian from South America end up in Africa? These were all countries that were visited by the Portuguese who had slaves, right? Yet I'm not aware from which countries they had slaves from. I hope this will spark some interesting conversation. Thank you.

I know as the Soviets advanced through Europe and into Germany, they raped and murdered many Germans and others.

• To what extent did the Soviet soldiers commit these crimes?

• Were there any other countries who committed crimes like this after they advanced through enemy land?

• Are there any figures like, death toll, that compare to the Holocaust as a friend of mine told me that more Germans died due to these crimes than Jews died in the Holocaust, but I can't find anything to back it up?

I ask this because the Abbasids claimed that they were descended from the prophet SAWS and their revolution was supported by the Shi'a who highly revere the Ahl al-Bayt(family of the prophet SAWS). Did they revolt on the basis that only members of the Ahl al-Bayt can rule the caliphate? The irony is that the Abbasids themselves assassinated the last 6 imams.

[deleted]

I'm aware they had different leaders and in some kingdoms, moved wealth to the countryside. What else changed for them?

So there and then i've read that the germans had to face tanks that were pretty much imune to their dedicated AT 37mm and later 50mm guns early in the war ( B1 french tanks, KV-1 tanks, and the like ).

Then they would have to use artillery gun with direct fire, and the 88 flak gun.

Hence my question : Since the 88 flak gun was a AA gun, I assume the standard ammo used HE with shrapnels and a fuze, but this sounds quite inadequate to deal with armored targets. So Did the german expect to use the 88 as an AT weapon and had AP ammunition provided or were they using standard AA shells ?

Surely it would be tough for any drinker to suddenly stop, but what about physically dependent alcoholics? How did they cope and get through withdrawals? Or did they?

Also, South Americans don't like how the US refers to themselves as Americans, because they also refer to themselves as Americans, why is this?

EDIT: Why do* not why does

I know central America had the Aztecs and so on, and in Peru there was the Incas. What about the rest of South America though? (Or lower central America, tbh). Were there other urban cultures besides the Incas? The stereotype I have is just thousands of square miles inhabited by hunter-gatherers and perhaps the occasional hut-dwelling villages. But I know that's not true in North America, so I assume it can't be in South America.

Hello!

I've been studying the English military of the 14th century, and a very interesting debate is the topic of a knight's warhorse. I'd always assumed the 'destrier' between 1100-1300 AD was a destrier; short-backed, stocky, quick, and strong. 14 to 16 hands and weighing between 500 and 650 kg.

However, some have proposed a lighter horse being used right from the early medieval period right up until the 1300's. This breed weighed little more than 400kg, was between 14.2 and 15.4 hands in height, and had very little if any Arabian blood in it. He also contended that medieval chargers of the period were NOT influenced by Arabian horses, and their primary influence was Spanish breeds.

Is this true? It seems nearly impossible anatomically.

THese two definitions are very confusing to me and in relation to Ranke I get totally lost. Is there any historian that could shed some light on this episode in Historiography?

Furthermore, was it the primary effect, something given even weight, or just a side effect?

I've seen a lot of arguments for the idea that the atomic bombings were intimidation in a sort of proto-Cold-War in the negotiations between the Allies in the ending stages and immediate aftermath of WWII. What I really want to know is if there's any evidence from the period about it.

When new amendments to the Constitution are passed are they written on the original Constitution? If not where are they physically added?

[deleted]

In English media, the word "regime" is almost exclusively used to describe dictatorial or repressive governments, eg "the Soviet regime", or by political commentators when describing a government they don't like.

Both "regime" and "government" are borrowed from French, and have similar origins, so why does "regime" have a more negative connotation, and when did this difference in usage start?

Reading some contemporary sources about the history of women rights got me believe that women were almost worse off in old America than today's Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia. Was that really the case? Or is it grossly exaggerated? What about Europe? If men believed they were inferior, how did they get to be Monarchs? I recognize they were generally expected to obey their fathers(before marriage) and husbands(after marriage), but they were somehow treated similarly to today's Islamic societies seem a bit off.

I'm writing a story about a Romanian who decides to immigrate with his family to Canada during 1943, after hearing his brother's messages about the surrender of Stalingrad. How would my character, assuming he can get on a boat to Canada, apply for citizenship? Would they refuse? Would he be sent back to Romania?