I was under the impression that 'r' in German is either pronounced as a voiced uvular fricative or uvular trill or vocalised. Has German changed since then or did Hitler speak some non-standard dialect?

I believe AskHistorians (a wonderful place) is only possible due to the tireless work of the moderators. Are there other informative subreddits that are modded to a comparable degree? I want to have peace of mind knowing what I am reading is accurate & that any mistakes will quickly be pointed out by other commenters

I am not specifically looking for other history based subreddits, but rather just informative subreddits as a whole

I read one of the articles that is floating around today about Trumps inauguration and how if they had tanks parade down the street it would tear them up. Did the Soviet Union and other countries with lots of military parades build roads specifically for oversized tracked vehicles? How would those parade logistics work? Did they have reinforced roads all the way to military bases or truck in all those vehicles for each parade?

Hello all. I'm starting to work on another paper for my Global History of Warfare course, this time with my focus being on Air Cavalry, particularly in the Vietnam War, as a military innovation. I've found a few sources that talk about its genesis (e.g. the Department of the Army's "Vietnam Studies: Airmobility"), and one that details Airmobile Operations as they were in 1960 (FM 57-35, Airmobile Operations), but obviously I won't be able to write an entire paper using just two sources.

I need to be able to discuss:

-The problems that Air Cavalry was designed to resolve (I have an idea of what those were, but any sources that may discuss them in depth would be very helpful) -It's legacy (i.e. it's place in US doctrine after the Vietnam War) -How it was used in a war (Vietnam) and/or battle (I'll likely focus particularly on the Battle of Ia Drang, unless someone can offer a better battle utilizing Air Cavalry, so sources on that would be great) -The successes and failures of Air Cavalry (i.e. how effective it was or was not).

I don't expect to receive a single comprehensive list of resources, but anything that anyone can offer that may help me out or point me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

Can't even have a proper discussion because the first commenter shut it down by attacking research methods. Let's just assume that this PhD didn't go around making a bunch of stuff up, huh? Have some faith and a bit of fun. And the commenters argument still doesn't disqualify all the original other's work.

I apologize for being uncivil, but I wish we could discuss this.

I wanted to know a good answer because this came up today in class and my teacher didn't have a definitive answer.

I have heard this many times, but I am having trouble finding any proof. Is this just a myth? Are there any confirmed written sources about this?

I was curious to try and find out how fatigued the soldiers involved in D-Day may have been before they landed. I've tried looking on the internet and cant seem to find a result for how long the soldiers had to stand in the Landing Crafts before and en-route to the landing zones.

I'm taking a history class that focuses on Theatre throughout the course of human history, and something that's been a surprisingly frequent occurrence in the last couple of months is theatre riots. These are things where the audience would get so impassioned by what they were seeing they would riot, be that because they agreed with the ideals of the piece, disagreed, or just really liked/disliked the actor.

The two examples that come to mind are the case of the opening of Victor Hugo's Hernani in 1830 (in Paris, I believe), which featured a riot between audience members who enjoyed the Romantic style and those who enjoyed the Neoclassical style, and the Astor Place Riots, which took place in Manhattan, and erupted because two companies were doing Macbeth at the same time, and fans of each of the respective Macbeths believed their choice was the best actor.

This isn't just a 19th century phenomenon, either, as just today we discussed a show (Six Characters in Search of an Author) which saw a theatre riot when it opened in Rome, though I didn't catch the year that happened. So what happened?

Sorry if this isn't the right subreddit for this question, but this does seem a history sort of question to me.

I know obviously, given its name, that the CSA was a confederacy of southern states. What I do not know however is how this was actually implemented. I assume that is was based off of the United States' political system (National/State constitutions and governing bodies, elected leaders, and somewhat federalized government). Did the national government have equal or less authority than the US government? I would imagine that they were hesitant to give much power to a centralized government and elect to hold more power in the states much like the articles of the confederation.

What is interesting to me is that during the American Revolution, the 13 colonies were very similar in a way to the South. Although there were no regional differences they had to establish a hasty government during secession and wartime much like the colonies and the continental congress/early implementation of the articles of confederation. This was no easy task for the founding fathers and I imagine it was the same for the south to get everyone on board.

What is also interesting to me is that the US clearly chose to forego the articles in favor of our current constitutional system (multiple contributing factors). Did the confederacy ever imagine switching their system if they had succeeded in their secession? Lastly, I know the southern states were having difficulty fighting the war because the states refused to offer money,troops, and supplies to the national government. Why did they not look to the relatively recent past of the revolutionary era and learn from past mistakes or adapt their situation to have a more powerful wartime government?

I tried asking this question a year ago but didn't get a response. Giving it another try!

I have read a lot of confusing statements, some of which seem dubious, about how Venetians practiced certain kinds of "licentious" behavior if they were wearing masks. For example, I now have the impression that it was considered OK for a priest to engage in sexual promiscuity if he wore a mask, but not OK if he was not wearing one. And I guess sometimes people wore masks every day for months on end?

I am confused about some of the legal issues surrounding this: according to one thing I read, in 1776 it seems that the law was on the side of the mask, saying that a bare face was "indecent." Other times it seems the law wanted people NOT to wear masks so often because their behavior would be better if they were personally accountable and identifiable. Could someone explain this to me so that it makes more sense?

For the scope of this question I'm thinking 1100 to 1300, but let me know if that's the wrong time period.

I just started playing Crusader Kings 2. In this game (a medieval sim game) mercenary companies are all over the place. You pay some gold and can double the size of your army. This brings up all kinds of questions:

• Is this even realistic? We're mercenary companies that common? Is yes:
• Who was in charge? Who chose where to work?
• How did you join a merc group, both as a common soldier or as a leader?
• Where the heck did the mercs live in between fighting?

Thanks!

[deleted]

I don't know either period well enough to sharpen this question. It just occurred to me to wonder what the answer was as I thought about how important French troops were at the Battle of York and how Napoleon's efforts to challenge the British navy only a couple of decades later failed utterly - or so I have heard.

Edit: Took out an unnecessary word.

And how aware were people of the changes?

I am looking at the political structure in France during and surrounding the reign of Louis Philippe I (1830-1848). From what I've gathered so far there was a census suffrage and no voting rights for women. But I'm not entirely certain on what that census was based (money, influence, aristocracy?), and more importantly: who decided whose votes would count for more (or less). I am also not entirely certain if commoners could vote or if they even had any chance in the system. So it boils down to three questions:

1. Who could vote for the chamber of deputies?
2. Who decided on the census?
3. How did corruption fare in this system?
   It seems like an easy system to game with enough influence, but I'm not entirely certain.

I hope somebody knows a bit more or knows of sources that talk about this.

This may sound like a completely stupid question but: How did people find each other in Ancient Rome? I assume that not every street had a name, and Ancient Rome was an insane maze of alleys and roads. And I assume that most buildings, if not all, did not have any numbers on them.

Now, I realize they didn't have mail, and most people didn't get messages via courier in their entire lives. However, I'm certain that sometimes, at some points in time, people had to be found. Say, a visiting relative coming from the provinces who wanted to see their cousin, or people looking for a person for a deposition in the forum, etc....

So, how did that happen? I realize that most towns and cities in antiquity were very small compared to that urban areas in which we live today. But Ancient Rome had about a million people or so - that's a heck of a lot of people. And yes, I realize that you could go to a general area and ask around at the local taberna or baths, but with a million people...that would still be very, very, hit and miss.

So any answers? Did they have "street addresses" in some way at all? Did they register at least the area in which they lived during the census, making it a bit easier to find and ask around?