I was an American studies major in college and took a great class on the historiography of the 1960s and '70s, so I know that recent history is written in waves with around a 30 year grace period. That said, is a research article from 1967 on, say, 1917 worse than a 2017 article published about the same topic in 1917?

Sorry if this is a bad question, and feel free to answer it as it pertains to your area. I've always wanted to see more questions asked about the practice of history on this sub.

To the best of my knowledge the reason why Julius was assassinated was because the Senate was scared that he was amassing to much power and wanted to avoid an emperor so why after they killed him did a emperor come into power?

In several reddit posts about German tanks and their ability to bounce enemy projectiles I see mentioned the fact that German steel was increasingly brittle due to missing alloys. I read the same in various blogs about real time tank warfare games (although not so realistic). Then, reading "Panther the German quest for combat dominance" I read the passage:

This damage should have excluded tank No. 3 from even being part of the testing process. Erickson makes the valid point that the Panther tank labeled No. 2 with the best plate reflected the true quality of Panther glacis plates for most of World War II and not the face-hardened armored Panther tank or the battle damaged example used at Isigny. Erickson is not the only one who believes that Panther armor remained free of serious defects for the duration of the war in Europe. Jentz and Doyle stated in their book Germany’s Tiger Tanks VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production and Modifications that “There is no proof that substandard German armor plate was used during the last years of the war. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war.” Evidence for the quality of late-war German armor plate can be found in a postwar U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground firing test (Project number 5044: July 16, 1945), which consisted of American 90-mm M82 AP projectiles fired at an early production Panther Ausf. D tank and at a late-war produced Panther Ausf. G tank. (late-war being the time period of supposed inferior steel). The 90-mm M82 AP rounds punched two holes through the Panther Ausf. D tank’s glacis plate with significant break out due to FHA brittleness in the face of overmatching projectiles. The 90-mm M82 AP projectiles did not penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther Ausf. G tank but did achieve a penetration through the glacis plate machine gun mount. The end result being only “scoops” upon the late-war glacis plate, not an indicator of substandard late-war armored steel against an overmatching projectile.

Can someone clarify this point? Was the German steel as good as the allies for heavy protection or duty (tanks, ships, guns, etc..) after 1943?

I've been reading about the NORAD agreement between Canada and the United States from a foreign policy perspective. From my personal research the historiography of NORAD in terms of foreign policy seems to focus on Canada a lot since there was a lot of domestic debate and controversy (sovereignty, Canadian identity).

I want to read about the American perspective, however I don't seem to be able to find many books/articles about it.

Who were the important actors in America for reaching the NORAD agreement? What are significant events (agreements, treaties, speeches etc.) that explicitly pushed the US towards NORAD. From my understanding, some sort of joint defence was necessary in response to the threat of Soviet bombers. However, I'm just missing all the decision-making process that led to it.

I've been watching Medici: Masters of Florence on Netflix (pretty fun but not very historical) and the common criticism of the Medici family by their enemies was that they were morally corrupt usurers, which of course the Medici deny in order to maintain favor with the Catholic church.

Now the way I understand usury is that today's definition is lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest, but originally usury meant charging interest of any kind.

I could understand how the bank could make money off the money they were holding for other people by investing it in land and businesses, but if the Medici bank wasn't charging interest, how were they making money from lending? Were they lending at a loss and depending on the profit from the investing side? Or were they secretly charging interest and were lying about not being usurers?

I study Ancient History at University, and during one of our seminars we were discussing the foundation myths concerning Rome. Which lead me to wonder if there are any concerning England? I know its a very old country and pre-dates many, but I don't really know of any founders or anything.

Was it permitted? Would civilians be detained? *Edit specifically during the war 1939-1945

I am german so I now jackshit about the American Civil War. All I know is that Gettysburg was the most important battle, Robert E. Lee was the best confederate General, the Confederacy was the underdog. Thats all. I do not even know how the war started or who started it.

Now to my question. I read on wikipedia that Lee was considered a hero by both southeners and northeners. I understand the southeners, since he defended their homeland. But the northeners? He was their enemy. Why did they consider him a hero, too?

I'm fairly well read in Japanese history, esp. concerning the Sengoku era, but have yet to find good sources explaining the meanings of the majority of Japanese names. I am aware of the commonly fluid nature of names in feudal Japan (e.g. Tokugawa Ieyasu changed his clan name from Matsudaira), and am also aware of the meanings of common given names like Ichiro (一郎) for first son and Jiro (次郎) for second/latter son.

But what about the meaning of names like Takeda (武田) or Hojo (北條)? I speak Mandarin, and reading those kanji characters would give the meanings "martial field" and "northern stripe" respectively. Did the Japanese take into account the individual kanji meanings when adopting their clan names? If/if not, what's the process an individual would go about selecting characters for his/his clan's new name?

For example, how specifically did the former Matsudaira Takechiyo decide on the characters 德川家康 ("virtue stream family health") to refer to himself? Was there a formal procedure that led him to eventually choose the syllables "toku" + "gawa"?

edit: formatting

[deleted]

Was their a profession, that created Them, and how did the symbols get selected?

[deleted]

I apologize if this sounds really ignorant! I'm not an American and unfortunately we didn't learn much at all about American history in school.

I know the fantasy trope of "leather armor" gets panned pretty often for being non-historical and unrealistic. I'm curious, though, how often leather served as the base garment for making brigandines. I don't know offhand of good sources to find images of originals, but what few I've found all seem to be made of some kind of textile rather than leather.

Can anyone point me to historical examples of leather-based brigandines (or other accessory forms of armor, particularly for the arms)? Failing that, can anyone say with authority that it just wasn't done?

I frequently see claims along the lines that FDR attacked Hoover's "dangerous socialist policies." This would be ironic given that the New Deal created a larger government that was more involved in the economic activities of the US.

Did FDR call for less federal government interventionism during the 1932 campaign?

So like, the Hunnic Empire was founded in Central Europe and took a wide area reaching from Ukraine to Italy. It lasted about 100 years before dissolving. So we have almost a century of a Central Asian tribe living in this part of Europe, but I haven't heard much about people with Asian descent living in this area.

So after the Empire dissolved, what became of this ethnic group?

Reading some Russian novels by folks like Lermontov and Bulgakov, I've noticed that speaking French and French society is routinely mentioned in their stories. Lermontov in A Hero of Our Time specifically mentions French speaking Russians, and Bulgakov wrote a book about Molière. I also know that (post-Crimean War, at least) the Franco-Russian Alliance was a major center of Continental power opposing Prussian power.

That may be a little thin for the grandiose title, but it is something I have noticed over the years and I wonder if I am onto anything or not.

I understand that archeological finds such as clothing or jewelry can only be circumstantial, but how about grave stones, inscriptions or something like that?