This dates back to at least the 18th century, when actual pirates were still a real problem to plenty of English speakers. So who first used this metaphor? Was it seen as excessive of exaggerated at the time?

Why did they care so much about covering up the facts, and destroying any evidence of what they had done? We're they actually ashamed of themselves?

I know at least for the English language, there was a long period where words had no agreed upon spelling. But once we enter the current era of formalized spelling, do we have records of any important documents containing overlooked typos and/or spelling errors that were not immediately fixed?

If so, have they had any effects?

I'm no expert on this, but is seems like the average citygoer in Rome or Greece could at least read. If this is true, why'd it stop?

I have heard that in the past Christians used to remove verses about Heaven to scare people into Christianity. So basically, most of the verses of Hell were left. It didn't really work to get enough converts, so Christians do not try this method (of scaring people into Christianity) anymore.

However, now we are left with "playing the harp" and being together with God. We don't have a thorough answer about what's in Heaven anymore.

Is this true?

Ideally, I'm looking for a book that covers American history after the Revolution and before the Civil War. Ideally one book, single-volume -- but all recommendations are appreciated!

I imagine they would've dragged their feet after its invention, considering that such a switch often involved total renovation of existing arsenals.

So how long did it take in full for various nation states?

I've known for a while that it was southern democrats fighting northern republicans during the civil war, but it just recently crossed my mind: why were the democrats in the south supporting slavery and seceding while northern republicans supported freedom and keeping the union together, when in today's terms the stereotypical democrat and republican are switched on issues like this and relating to it?

I can think of several notable examples, including the Naval Mutiny of the Kriegsmarine in 1918 and the planned mutiny of the Black Sea Fleet in 1905, which eventually was carried out mostly just by the Battleship Potemkin. Yet while I'm sure that plenty of men in the Army also had sympathies with Socialist causes, if so, they certainly seem to be less notable in their expression of it. Even looking at the Russian Revolution, which the Army no doubt took part in, their participation seems to be fractured and without real direction early on, while the Navy, best exemplified by the Kronstadt Uprising, seem to have been much more dedicated to what they saw as their cause.

• So the question is why did Socialism seem to appeal to sailors?
• How strong were sentiments within the Armies of that period - German especially - and what prevented it from reaching the same level of acceptance?
• Furthermore, while we see outward rebellion manifested in some fleets, how strong were such sentiments in others, such as the French or British, of the period?

I have to do a presentation on the gunpowder empires (I have not been given the exact topic of the presentation yet) for my college empires in world history course. What are some good sources that I can use, and what are some misleading or bad sources I should avoid?

[deleted]

I just got back from a history lecture and my professor stated that Queen Isabella sold the crown jewels to pay for Columbus’s voyage. Is this true? How could a country like Spain at the time of the 15th century not be able to afford a simple voyage of three ships across the Atlantic?

[deleted]

Did past historians ever mistakenly take a piece of satire as historical primary source when it was in fact satire or purposely blown out of proportion? Kind of how we get people screwing up links to the Onion as legit news? And how do we verify the information in ancient sources so that we know these people actually existed?

After watching through a few WWI videos and educational videos I keep coming across part of the story that confuses me: As part of quelling Hungary's discontent with the war and their fear of losing their new rights, they agreed to not annex Serbia or even demand land concessions.

The part that confuses me is, if land wasn't on the table, what did Austria-Hungary want from Serbia? Monetary reparations could never cover the cost of mobilizing their whole army, forcing their police in seems a very minor demand for a full scale war, I just cant think of anything they would want.

Currently working on an independent study regarding the history of art and I would love some help.

Did the owner of the harem sleep with all of the women equally or did he have a favourite? Were most of the women really beautiful or just average? Could the women go whereever they wanted to or were they stuck in the harem? Please tell everything you know about this subject. Thanks in advance your answer is greatly appreciated!

This question always bothered me because the american civil war is famous on a global scale ,however was it actually really that important to shape European , asian , african etc. history or was it just significant for the US.

I'm probably going to go back to school this Fall and history was always my favorite (and best) subject in school. I'm considering majoring in history when I go, but what jobs are there besides being a history teacher/professor? Is it a relatively open field, or do you have to claw your way into a good degree related job?

I know this isn't technically within the rules, but I'm hoping mods will let this slide cause I don't think there's a better subreddit to ask this question.