When did waterproofs become a thing within sailing? And what was initially used to keep clothing documents and other materials dry?

After Constantine's victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, and subsequent ascension to become Emperor, surely there was some retaliation from Rome's citizens and conservative Romans?

The land area of the Balkans is similar to some European countries, but the region is inhabited by a large variety of ethnicities, such as Greeks, Albanians, Turks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians and many others. Why did this happen, and why did it only happen in the Balkans?

Particularly interested in primary resources in 16th-18th century Britain, Europe and Colonial America. I want to create versions of these brews with primitive equipment, fashioned after those of the period i.e. Oak tuns and barrel fermentation. Other historical periods welcome, the more info the merrier. thanks y'all!

[deleted]

[deleted]

It seems so strange that a neutral country would comply with one blockade, but ignore another one, especially since it is my understanding that the US was really neutral when the war broke out.

Am I misunderstanding? Why was there such outrage over the sinking of a US ship by the Germans when a ship headed for Germany that would ignore the UK navy would also be sunk?

Edit: apologies for the mangled title...

I was just reading up on Julius caesar and several other early Roman emperors and it seems like they rarely had biological children. Caesar had one daughter and a son by cleopatra, Octavian not had one daughter, and so on. Why is that? You think they would've put more emphasis on continuing the dynasty. Maybe it's just that I've playing to much ck2 and watching too much game of thrones, I don't know but it just seems odd that these emperors didn't really try and have plenty of children to pass the throne onto.

Considering the colonies had just fought a war with the French 13 years earlier, and they had long been considered an enemy, were people wary of French involvement, or were some outright opposed?

I'm writing a paper for an invertebrate paleontology course and my paper is going to be based on the fossils found in coal beds. What they are, how they got there, and our history with them. I know humans have had contact with coal in Britain for quite a while and our views on history and evolution have changed frequently. What I need from all of you is some information and sources on human interactions with coal bed fossils over time.

So do we have any idea about what happened to diogenes' barrel. We know Alexander the great sometimes consulted with him so is it possible it could have been taken into his possession. Is there a chance it could still exist somewhere today or would the wood have completely rotted away.

As in were the people that lived considered natural born citizens, green card individuals, or just plain illegal residents?

My grandfather was in the US Army and fought on New Guinea and in the Philippines. He didn't like to talk about the war much, but the one time he opened up he said something about soldiers being hidden high in trees. This seems wildly impractical but I recall him sounding very impressed by it. I'm sixteen years too late to ask for clarification now and his memory wasn't always the best, so: Was this a thing? If so why and how effective was it?

I'm currently studying to become a high school history teacher. With a recent surge in interest in World War I (thanks largely to the popularity of Battlefield 1) I've been looking for a piece of pop culture that far more accurately depicts the first world war.

Many films such as Gallipoli and Paths of Glory are great movies but their accuracy is questionable at times (though they are quite a step up from Battlefield 1) So what films (or shows) stand out as well researched and accurate depictions of the Great War?

I'd like to compile a list of the best book about the history of each country.

I have already read Misha Glenny's "Fall of Yugoslavia" and Laura Silber's "Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation". As well, I have watched BBC's "The Death of Yugoslavia.

It seems to have become a long-standing tradition in the U.S. Navy to name warships after major political figures, regardless of their particular martial ferocity or international legacy. This has led to other countries having ships with names like Britain's Vengeance or France's Orion... versus American vessels like the USS Carl Vinson. Nothing against Rep. Vinson and his achievements, but it's not a name to strike international terror. And yet, the Vinson strike group on its own is probably one of the most formidable assemblies of naval power in the history of the human race. It just doesn't seem appropriate, somehow?

In short:

• Why do American vessels largely carry names from political figures rather than otherwise?
• How are these names chosen?

Did the beginning of the Common Era coincide with the birth of Christ, of his return from the dead? I.E. in the year 0 was Jesus born or did he die?

I am in between broadband providers and some other basic amenities, and so have thrown on a borrowed DVD of Day of The Dead. Whilst it's production values disappoint me greatly, it set me speculating...

If the popular-cultural phenomenon of Zombies came to prominence in the 60s, might they have origins in the Cold War?

If one reads any civil defence document on the matter of distribution of resources, of the era, one finds that one of the of biggest concerns of civil defence planners was the prevention of wasting resources on those who had been dosed with a terminal amount of radiation poisoning, the so-called Walking Dead. Individuals who would be alive to eat the food, but who would nonetheless definitely die a horrible death regardless.

Might there be connection?