I'm watching the movie and obviously i know it's based on a true story. He says he will flee the factory after he hears that the war is over. Who was he afraid was going to capture him, and why did they want to capture him? Also, where did his workers go after he fleed? The scene where they are all asleep outside and a Soviet officer tells them they are liberated is confusing. I understand the movie was based on a novel which wasn't 100% true

A logbook perhaps mentioning the goods they purchase and sold, harbors ahd markets they may have visited, deals and bargains they struck, etc.

Or a journal written by a merchant describing his work.

Was it Ancient Egypt, or even before that?

E.g. Were there any notable battles involving defenders defending a castle?

[deleted]

Hope this is the right place to post this. So lately I have researched and been quite fascinated (and a little horrified) by learning about the exposure of lead to millions of people since it's additition to gasoline in the 20's I believe all the way through the early 80's (in the US). Was nearly every child exposed to lead because of this? And maybe a historian can't answer this but wouldn't it have had lasting effects on adults even alive today? I'm surprised I don't hear more about this but maybe because it was such a terrible thing to have happened for so long. Was it as bad in other countries as in the U.S or not? Thanks

Obviously .45s have good stopping power etc. but was there an edge the 8mm had that made it the choice for Japanese sidearms?

Wasn't sure how to deduce this into a short title, but the question is:

Creationists tend to be young earth believers and also believe in Biblical Inerrancy. Everything comes back to proving God and the bible and assumes it is 100% accurate.

Scientists tend to come from a purely nataralistic "There is no God" and the bible and other historical myths are false and uneducated, etc.

And then you have all of the ancient codes, aliens are among us, conspiracy theorists.

It seems exceedingly hard to find well rounded researches that are coming at history under assumptions such as:

• Equally possibility of naturalistic evolution VS intelligent design (either by a Creator God, aliens, or the assumption that those are one and the same).

• Taking old myths and writings a bit more seriously, under the assumption that things could be distorted with time and timelines may be off

Etc.

I am wondering what sort of research (historical + scientific) there may be for the possibility of a great deluge like all of our recorded myths state, but with timelines that needn't adhere strictly to the bible or young earth.

I find the fact that ancient literature all meticulously record long life spans that mirror an exponential decay in lifespan very interesting. The ubiquity of flood myths, and beliefs in gods, sky people, spiritual practices, advanced "religious" architecture, etc.

I put "religious" in quotes because as science progresses it seems we may be coming full circle in realizing that things we consider "religious" may actually have been extremely high tech, and our transistors and silicon based computers and steel metal working may actually be incredibly primitive. That quantum mechanics is showing more "spiritual" principles to actually be scientific, etc.

Also, the possibility that while tectonic plate movement is slow today, it certainly could have been catastrophically quick at one point and swallowed continents or civilizations.

That many accounts in myths and biblical literature could sound an awful lot like sci-fi (Garden of Eden... a bio dome? Adam naming animals, a scientist? Tree of knowledge and tree of life related to consciousness and DNA strands?) etc.

To me it seems completely reasonable to take our oldest literature a little more seriously instead of assuming ancients were primitive and explore and map out possibilities here, without the baggage of "God vs science" and the weight of trying to force fit biblical inerrancy onto old texts, etc.

It seems to harm the conversation and I would like to think there are balanced, open minded researches trying to map out possibilities here.

But all I can find online is extremes (alien conspiracy wackos, young earth apologists, staunchly anti-intelligent design or myth scientists, etc.)

It seems a bit suicidal, that's all. I'm surprised that even Napoleon was doing this, since he was a genius.

In Empire of The Summer Moon, a history of the Comanche people, CS Gwynne says that the the bow and arrow was more effective than rifles until it was eclipsed by the invention of the six shot revolver. But if that is true, surely European armies should have been using bows instead, right?

[deleted]

I'v been trying to figure this out for awhile now because I'v heard conflicting opinions on the topic.

while i'm aware many countries were created after WW2, the two main sticking points for me are korea and germany. why did the allied powers choose to administer the countries themselves, specifically korea, as opposed to naturalizing the governments? (japan had recently annexed korea in 1910)

is it just a case of "if we don't take half of korea, USSR will take all of it, and if we don't take half of germany, it'll all be USSR"? or "we can't trust them because they were japanese/nazi ruled so recently"?

I understand that there generally wasn't significant support for a revolt against the crown in British American possessions outside of the 13 colonies which did declare independence, even though the Continental Congress made overtures to several of them.

In the areas which Britain occupied after the French and Indian war, was there any change in sentiment when their former motherland joined the conflict with Britain?

After a little searching I have not seen any specifics. Did we bury the remnants somewhere? Are they in storage somewhere? How much were they able to "put back together" in analyzing the accidents?

Intact examples of viking round shields recovered from the Gokstad ship were 94 cm across and made from a single layer of planks, about 7 mm at the center. My question is, how would meter-long planks as thin as 7 mm have been manufactured with techniques of that period?

Did he ever fight an enemy army consisting mostly of mounted archers along the lines of what the Parthians or Mongolians would have fielded? If so, how did he deal with them? I imagine that ranged weapons would decimate a sarissa phalanx.