With the arrival of Columbus and the Spanish it didn't take long until plague had spread across the continent and wiped out millions of Native Americans, so why didn't we see a similar effect when Leif Eriksson arrived five centuries earlier and made contact with the natives? Was there or why wasn't there a European induced plague in America around 1000 AD?

Also, did he have enough rations to survive because he thought he'd not make it? What was his backup plan if he were to not make it? And did he really know where he was going?

I'm asking this because:

A) Duels are fascinating.

B) I know there is a dueling expert mod on this sub.

I know this sub has a reading list, but I only found books on there dealing with general civil war history. I'm looking for a first hand war account, reminiscent of Storm of Steel or Fire-eaters. Anyone know of any good ones?

I mean, I guess some could have been ordered by Russia, but wouldn't it be easier to make it at home, rather than risk losing it to torpedoes en route?

And why would Germany be making ammo for enemy guns?

I'm well aware the vast majority of German soldiers were on the Eastern Front but I'm a little confused about the quality of those the Western Allies faced. I've heard and read on the internet (mostly message boards or comment sections) that the German soldiers on the Western Front that American, British, and Canadian forces fought weren't as well trained or equipped as the soldiers on the Eastern Front. One comment even suggested they were "old men, kids, and the infirm with smatterings of SS here and there" which I'm assuming is hyperbole. Also, how much of a role did the Waffen SS play on the Western Front?

The title.

It seems that the other direction (rising prestige of a president) has happened on at least some occasions. Have any past presidents' standings fallen substantially in the eyes of historians, or have those who have fallen in the rankings simply been surpassed by those whose standing has risen?

Since I can think my dad had an UN Tank on his shelf that reads: "We kill for peace". Did a tank like this ever exist, I can't seem to find any information on the internet (Link to a photo in the comments⬇)

I'm working through a hypothesis that is well outside the purview of this subreddit, and a massive controversy magnet besides, so I don't want to be too blunt as to my motives. I'm particularly interested in fathers that might have been suffering from untreated symptoms of PTSD or similar stress-related phenomena, as well as children left fatherless by the war. My hypothesis deals specifically with the western conception of masculinity, which is why I'm focused on fatherhood.

Are we talking significant numbers, here? Enough to significantly shape the next generation in noticeable ways? And are the numbers different enough between the USA and other Western nations that there could be an appreciable difference in impact?

Hell, has someone written about this already? I'd love to read about it.

On paper it seems like Imagawa and Tokugawa had an immense advantage over the Oda during their alliance. How exactly did the Oda manage to hold off against them for so long up until Okehazama where they finally dealt the decisive blow to Imagawa?

This might not be the best subreddit to ask this question and if anyone would redirect me I'd only be happy to oblige but I'll ask anyway. I've read many a times in fiction novels depicting much more ancient times that warriors when out and about would not carry there bucklers but would have swords on there waists and a cloak/robe around them and when attacked with arrow would use it to to block them ..... for lack of better term by swishing ? it around. Would this have actually worked ?

Hi, I saw this claim on Wikipedia but couldn't find a better source for it anywhere. It sounds more or less plausible but I'd really like confirmation.

I'm currently reading Who Cooked the Last Supper? by Rosalind Miles (1988: Three Rivers Press, New York). On pages 45-46 she writes the following:

Queenhood was so common among the Celtic Britons that the captured warriors brought in triumph before Claudius in AD 50 totally ignored the Roman emperor and offered their obeisance instead to his empress, Agrippina.

This is given without citation. Never having come across this anecdote before, I went to check Suetonius' Life of Claudius, and Cassius Dio's Roman History in quick succession, and came up with nothing. Putting aside the interpretation, are there any primary sources for this anecdote?

Im currently reading the Orkneyinga Saga, and I keep seeing men being referred to as both "Chief/Chieftain" and "Earl". Were these titles interchangeable or would an Earl rule over several Chieftains, who in turn ruled a small piece of the earldom? Thanks.

I know about the obvious North/South issues.

Did the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries have this urban/rural divide in beliefs like we do today? For example, did Franklin and S. Adams share "urban" political positions opposite those of the more country gentlemen like Jefferson and Washington?

I hope this has been tagged properly. I ask out of curiosity of the mindset of historians, and to get a better view perhaps of how to understand what historians say.