It appears to me the average person during medieval times suffered famine, poor health and violence (to themselves and against other) quite regularly. As a result, did soldiers who fought in battle suffer from PTSD as we see in modern times? Or did their daily life condition them such that it was less traumatic?

If he was choosing not to have Rockefeller on the ticket, I’ve always been confused as to why he didn’t choose Reagan. I know that was a contentious, bad-blood primary but it would’ve United the party behind Ford at the very least.

I feel a similar way about Hillary Clinton not choosing Bernie Sanders, but I was alive for that one so it’s easier to comprehend.

I know that there is written history for some civilizations such as the Maya, however why aren’t there history books that speak of ancient battles, leaders, stories, territories being changed etc for Native American people prior to when Europe settled the continent?

If yes, than I would ask for the best books about the early days of Nazi Germany and how it came to be. Also from 1920 to 1933 and 1933 to 1939. I want to know more how Strasser and other people gave the Nazi party the opportunity to seize the Reich so fast and how they consolidated power up to 1939.

edit: Christie, not Christe, in the title

These portrayals, especially in Conan Doyle's "The Man with the Twisted Lip," depict an otherwise respectable British gentleman who is addicted to opium visiting an opium den to get his fix. How common was this? I know anti-Asian sentiment was common, often portraying Asians as exotic and inscrutable, sometimes with otherworldly intuition or as clever criminals. Were these stories perpetuating those stereotypes, or was there something to the opium den phenomenon, or both? Finally, what are some good sources on understanding anti-Asian bias in fiction, especially golden age detective fiction?

There are a lot of genocides that were never mentioned in my 1990s US public school education. Meanwhile, I had multiple classes over the years that taught the Holocaust (to some level of detail). How did the Holocaust get picked as the one we would study year after year?

Example of other genocides that I don't recall being taught:

1. Armenians by Ottomans in modern Turkey
2. Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda
3. Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Chinese by other Cambodians

There are also some things I'm not sure count as genocides but feel similar in that people organized to do a thing and then a lot of people died. The "a lot of people died" seemed to be the primary significance of the Holocaust when I heard about it in school. Examples of these "a lot of people died":

1. Africans by Belgians in modern Democratic Republic of Congo
2. Native Americans by Spain, US, and Canada (silver mines, trail of tears, residential schools)

Is there something that distinguishes these other events from the Holocaust? E.g., availability of records, perpetrators no longer a major world power, victims still a world power, etc.? Or was my school just bad at teaching history?

Edit: I fully believe in the Holocaust. I do not want to hear your conspiracy theories about how Jews control the media. Holy shit.

It makes sense to me why it took so long for most of the Western European powers to discover the American continents. They had to cross a big dangerous ocean so it makes sense they didn't find it until some idiot got really lost. But some Scandinavian Vikings found North America by shore hoping past iceland and greenland, and then left because there wasn't much to raid. So why didn't the British ever do this. And on the other side of the world there's a broken land bridge between Russia and North America. I can't imagine it would be too difficult to sail across it. So why didn't Russia, Japan, or China ever head over there and start the colonizing that empires love to do?

Was there something about surnames in Central and Eastern Europe or Jewish culture that caused these to be particularly common among the Ashkenazi population? Relatedly, is there any reason for the extra prevelance of precious gems and materials, for example professions they were historically allowed to work in?

Less of a specific question and more of a general request for literature on Occitania in Medieval times. Both popular and scientific titles are welcome, though I would rather be tending towards the serious side of things - I am happy to read collections of essays and such.

Rasputin had the ear of both the Tsar and Tsarina by convincing them he had magical healing abilities. We're the Russian royals just gullible idiots, and rasputin took advantage of that to gain power? Or did he believe he had powers and was insane?

Most scenarios regarding the cold war turning hot generally focus on a Soviet initiation of hostilities and then likely Western responses. What I have never seen clearly articulated is what situations would have made the Soviet Union consider war worthwhile or desirable?

Was it a certain estimated advantage? A stumbling escalation of crisis requiring drastic action ? Estimating that the balance of strength was slipping away?

Other than outright hostility from Nato, What would have caused the Soviet Union to go to war? Did they know? Did they have policies and protocols?

Bulgaria joined the axis under "accept or be invaded and possibly sent to camps" conditions.

Bulgaria didn't invade any land (however they occupied some) there weren't any battles between bulgaria and the allies, at most there were skirmishes with remaining forces in german occupied territories.

However Sofia was heavily bombed, sustaining a lot of civilian casualties, and I don't see the reason for such action in such circumstances

Info on this topic is rather scarce, so I wanted to ask if someone knew anything else

I've watched a lot of stuff about what the conditions were like in the trenches during WW1, but I have one question that I'm having trouble getting answered.

The shellings and artillery fire; was it constant from like the early morning until night time or did it only happen before an attack? Did it happen at a set schedule like "Oh lads it's 11 a.m. give them hell" or something along those lines?

My impression is that the different sides, since they had dug in, were almost always in range of eachother's artillery, so it'd make sense to just fire continuously around the clock, no? But then you'd also need sleep and rest if you were to spend weeks at the front wouldn't you?

Any insight would be appreciated!

I have read some general books on roman culture, but I've been finding them a bit too general. And I haven't had any better luck online. So I wondered if anyone had some book recs to dive into it deeper. Especially in terms of technology.

For example:

Roman architecture - lots of sources like listing all the things romans had, like the concrete, aqueducts, basic plumbing and floor heating, etc. But they never go into much detail. I want to know the process of exactly how the Romans made these things and how they worked.

Clothing - I don't necessarily mean in terms of what was fashionable, but more in terms of practically. How did they use the materials they had to make clothing that kept them warm, protected there feet, etc. What kinds of underclothing did they have, etc. And how did these improve over time?

Production techniques - Things like blacksmithing, cloth making, cooking, farming and mining. What techniques did they use? What procedures did they have? What tools did they use? What exactly did they make and how?

I guess I kind of want to understand their technology in such a way that if I were to be transported back to Ancient Rome, I could just walk right up and start doing one of these production professions. To the extend that that is possible with the limited knowledge we have at least.

Were the founders of Roman mythology already believers in the Greek pantheon? Was it an offshoot that developed gradually - both linguistically and mythologically? Or was it a rapid change for cultural or colonial reasons?

The hussites had a unique battle plan of chaining carriages to create a mobile wall then peasants with improvised weapons would kill incoming troops from a high-ground. It was very effective, so why wasn't it used ever after? (Or if it was then where and when?)

If you wore sandals on a construction site you'd be sent home. Surely a battlefield has more hazards

If anyone has any recommendations I’d greatly appreciate it. Currently reading Richard Overy’s ‘The Bombing War’.

There is no limit to the amount of bizarre stories and images out there showing all sorts of "treatments" from the past. Of course memes aren't facts, but nevertheless it often seems like for the longest time, going to the doctor was going to end up with you being told you had ghosts in your blood and that you should take cocaine to treat it. What's the history of procedures/medicines that actually worked and were widely used?

So during the middle ages the feudal system ruled as the main political/economic/cultural system in Europe. I am wondering if any people lived outside of being a part of the nobility, clergy, or serf groups. Would people travel from fiefdom to fiefdom? Would anyone live within the area of a fiefdom without the knowledge of the Lord?