We are all becoming more aware of mental health issues therefore I am wondering if these condititions existed in the past perhaps just undiagnosed. Or is modern life promoting more of these issues?

Reading a recent thread about the causes of the Civil War it appeared to me that at least by the 1860s the Democratic Party was what we would consider today conservative, almost reactionary, while the Republicans were more liberal, even progressive. Today, however, it's the complete opposite.

Provided my impression is correct, when did that shift took place and what were the causes?

I am always in search of my first love, prehistoric fiction. I am not a fan of fantasy heavy bastardizations, the only exception being ASOIAF. I have read and loved Stonehenge by Bernard Cornwell, and can marginally enjoy the Auel books, though i think she reaches a bit far with some of her narrative relating to the abilities of Neanderthal communication. Looking for recommendations for prehistoric Britain in particular, and more widely, europe. I am deeply interested in any pre roman era fiction for either area that is reasonably accurate or at least probable. Details would be appreciated for recommendations. Thank you in advance!

This question hopes to tease out whether the aptitude of military cultures to adapt to change play a more important role in the evolution of combat, than technological advancements.

I should state at the outset that I understand tank vs. tank combat is NOT a useful metric for studying the performance of armored forces in WW2. However, I've been curious what effect, if any, a diversity of tank chassis had on the effectiveness of armored forces in tank vs. tank combat (again: I'm not arguing that this is more important than it is). Development of the KV chassis, for instance, allowed Soviet designers to house larger guns such as the ML-20S or M1938 152 mm field howitzers and use them in direct fire anti-tank roles. The Germans followed a similar pattern with the Jagdtiger's PaK 44, the Jagdpanther's Pak 43, etc. The Americans, on the other hand, were limited to the Sherman chassis. It wasn't practical or perhaps even possible to mount anything larger than a 105 mm howitzer (obviously larger guns are fitted to the Sherman chassis, but they were artillery pieces that were not used for direct fire against German armor).

The reason I ask is that I've always wondered if one of the ignored advantages of the M26 Pershing was that it could have given American designers a heavier chassis and the capability to mount larger guns for anti-tank roles, just as the Germans and Russians had done. In other words, the Pershing, in addition to providing US armored forces with a heavier tank, might also have given American designers flexibility. I'm pretty sure the answer to my question is "yes," but I'm curious if anyone else on /r/AskHistorians has researched the topic.

Again: this question is very limited in scope. I'm not trying to place undue importance on tank vs. tank combat or argue that the Sherman was an ineffective/the deployment of the Pershing was critical. Thanks for reading.

First of all, please pardon my English. I'm not a native speaker.

I've got into an argument with a stranger today about bathing behavior and hygiene of those people in medieval era.

I believe that bathing was not commonly popular but she argued that medieval people usually took a bath until the bubonic plague started and people got panicked because they thought that bathing would make their skin pores 'widen' and get disease easier.

Tried googling a bit but got confused because too many sources are conflicting with each other and no reference.

So, help me, Reddit.

I was reading about the Arbëreshë people in Italy, descendants of Albanians that fled the Ottomans and remained Christian. It made me wonder why certain parts of the Ottoman domain became so Islamicized while others didn't. For example, looking at things from a geographical perspective, why would a country like Bulgaria, so close to the Ottoman heartland, resist Islamicization, while Albania, on the outskirts and closer to the western world, became a success story for Islam?

We all know it had torpedoes a gun on deck and some mg/auto cannons for aa but how many rifles smg and pistols would your average sub have?

As a current service member, and especially making the transition to being an officer, I'm well-versed in the principle of risk mitigation is everything. It's something of a joke that the military values, at once, the bold and decisive leader who religiously CYA (covers-your/his/her-ass) and never steps far outside of the approved box. From having written risk assessments required for nearly every activity (and the proper delivery of such rehearsed in NCO school) to the incredible amount of paperwork required for something as simple as taking leave, today's military is nothing if not thorough. There is a form, instruction, and/or directive for literally everything.

This obviously wasn't always the case; for much of U.S. history, the military was barely professional, let alone bureaucratic. When did this shift occur, and was there a major precipitating factor?

Someone I know argued that the use of armor (both German and Allied) in North Africa was closer to conditions on the Eastern Front than it was to the Western Front. German armor tended to be placed in stationary, defensive positions on the Western Front or at least more so than in North Africa, but I'm having trouble seeing a strong connection between North Africa and the Eastern Front (disclaimer: I have a mediocre at best understanding of armored warfare on the Eastern Front). I'd welcome any opinions for or against the claim. Thanks for reading and/or responding.

[deleted]

Several weeks back, I read an article that called the quote in question "absurd." The argument was the oldest profession is hunting, as we have no evidence of hunter-gatherers ever engaging in prostitution, but we have plenty of evidence of them hunting.

I've spent a few minutes googling and unfortunately can't find the article again. But I'm not sure I agree with the article's reasoning. Does hunting so you don't starve really count as a profession? I feel like a civilization needs to exist for a profession in the modern sense of the word to exist, which would rule out taking hunter-gatherers into consideration.

What is the view on this from a historical standpoint, though?

The atomic bombs dropped at Alamogordo and Nagasaki were both Implosion type weapons while the Bomb dropped on Hiroshima used a gun type system.

Was this because plutonium was easier to obtain than Uranium-235? Did the United States plan on using more implosion type weapons or gun type weapons if Japan didn't surrender after the 2nd bomb?

I like studying history, however I am not a professional historian. Is there any way for me to get access to primary sources? I know I can go to a library and read a book about someone else's research, but how would I gain access to say, the tax census of a french town in the 1700's, or surviving historical murals?

I don't mean who handed him the bullets, I mean before that: were they manufactured by a big company? Did a peasant worker on a factory line chisel a little rock together? Were they simply purchased at a store on the way to Sarajevo? If so, where did the store get them? A supplier? Homemade?

I find Ferdinand's assassination fascinating in that it's rippling effects dramatically changed the world and I'd just like to know, if possible, the specific origins of that little piece of rock that found itself changing the very course of humanity.

Thanks in advance.

This has always been a rather unclear and confusing topic for me. Back then, did most infantry simply consist of untrained peasants, or of professional Men at Arms?

To elaborate, Vietnamese and japanese people have lower nose bridges but the mongol empire did not extend to either country. However, both countries were heavily influenced by China, and China was entirely a part of the mongol empire, so is that evidence to show that lower nose bridges were a facial feature of the Mongols and that can be an indication of the reach of the mongol empire?

If this facial feature is a characteristic of early mongol influence then why is it not prevalent in West European countries?

I know and understand why he says it. My question is , what are some good pieces of literature that I can learn more about the Phoenicians and learn more about the connection?