Can anyone elaborate on the Dred Scott Case? I'm confused as to what everyone's philosophy was to be certain.

Admiral Horatio Nelson famously served in the Royal Navy for many years after the amputation of his arm. There's also a multitude of images in popular culture of pirate captains with peg legs.

Was it typical for sailors with physical disabilities to continuing serving on ships, and in what capacities? Would a disabled naval officer/ship captain have better prospects at sea than a common seaman with physical impairments?

I've read many young males were castrated to be eunuchs which might explain why they didn't procreate

I read that to get a government job in Nazi Germany you needed to get an Aryan certificate and that the certificate had to trace the family pedigree down to 1800 (and to 1750 for SS officers) and prove they had no non Aryan ancestors, would Hitler himself have even passed this test?

I read today that mercury was used to "cure" syphilis, but couldn't find any information on whether or not it made a difference. I've read about various mercury treatments throughout history, in many different locations by societies that (I assume) weren't linked to one another. If this is true and the use of mercury was used to cure a variety of ailments by many different people independent of one outside influences, did it actually provide any medical benefits? Were they aware that it was harmful (but unaware of the extent of the harm) and if so, did they simply believe that the benefits outweighed the detriments (due to having few/no other alternatives)?

I've been reading some church history lately, and it seems like paganism started fizzling out around the fifth and sixth centuries. I also know that "pagan" comes from the word meaning "rustic," so obviously paganism lasted longer in rural areas than in places like Rome or Byzantium. What are the latest records we have of people practicing Roman pagan religion?

I watched a sensationalist documentary the other month about the connection between former Nazis, and anti-Israeli movements in post-WWII Arab nations. I'm hoping some less sensationalist experts could weigh in on this topic. It was on a Military Channel documentary that seemed to have a cheap History Channel level budget focusing on a narrow topic. It mentioned the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Skorzeny working for Nassar & having training connections to Saddam & Ghadaffi. Everything else was pretty much "look at this compared to this" indirect correlational junk. (Like the Hamas mouse talks like Hitler & the Al-Qaeda hand book sounds like the Werwolfen handbook.) Is there any more direct & interesting connections to post-war Arab nations & Nazi influence?

Do we have any primary source Pagan attacks/defenses against Christianity? Or do we only know of Romans "fighting back" against Christianity in the form of reading between the lines in Christian apologists and similar works?

What type of missions would fighter-bombers like the British typhoon or the American thunderbolt be used for during world war two, did they have specific targets or were they mostly just called in whenever they were needed? What kinds of targets did they usually attack, I know they were used to harass German armoured collumns and logistics but were they also used against infantry or bunkers and the like? How effective were they at performing their tasks?

My friend and I are wondering when is the correct time to use My Lady and when to use Her Ladyship. I've searched around and can't find anything concrete other than sites state they can both be used, but is there a proper time/situation to use one or the other?

I've seen it mentioned, but would like to have it verified or debunked if possible. Referring to the time between outbreak of WW2 (Sept 39) and attack on Pearl Harbour.

The statistic is from page 212 of "The American Dream: Reality and Illusion 1945-80" by Vivienne Sanders, published by Hodder Education.

Vercingetorix and Charlemagne were separated by roughly 800 years. And both originate from nearby regions. So what would some of the more notable differences between their two armies and style of warfare be?

For example, what type of formations did they employ, what type of arms and armor would the common soldiers have, did they both have mostly "professional" armies? etc... What type of notable changes in tactics and equipment would there be?

If the question is too broad feel free to narrow it down to one or two subjects. Any information is better than none.

I have tried to research this, and almost all websites online are so biased that I have no idea who to believe, but I trust Ask Historians to give the high quality and well sourced answers I need.

Just for clarity's sake, I'll outline my biases. I am an ethnically ashkenazi atheist jew living in the United States. I have been to Israel for my birthright trip, and only spoke to one Palestinian man when I was there (he was giving a lecture about promoting a unified, non religious Israeli identity interestingly enough). I have been mostly exposed to very angry jewish language claiming that the palestinians are either very recent residents, or moved in only after the arab/muslim invasions of the 7th century, say that there used to be palestinian ethnic peoples who lived there but the modern Palestinians are not related to them, or simply try to argue that the Jews have been there longer.

I don't trust anything on this issue without some serious sources, so I have no idea who to believe.

H3H3's newest video has Ethan very confidently saying that "Walt Disney was a notorious racist and anti-Semite." I'm a big fan of Disney and can't find any quotes online of Walt being racist. Does anyone know if Walt really did hate or dislike Jews?

I know the Triple Entente arose in part due to the traditional balance of power in mainland Europe being disrupted by the emergence of a unified Germany. The War of the Spanish Succession came about due to fears that France and Spain might unite. Did France return to the possibility of building closer links with Spain to counterbalance Germany?

[deleted]

Wasn't the US far superior to Mexico in manpower and technology? Why would the Mexican government ever even consider this plan, when it seems so unlikely to have succeeded?

The ESA seems like it should have been an incredibly divisive piece of legislation at the time, and yet it was strongly supported by Nixon and passed the House and Senate with votes of 390-12 and 92-0 respectively. What forces, political or otherwise were at play here? Was the environmental situation just that dire, or was there more to it?