Obviously the premise of the question may be incorrect, but I can't really find equivalent names in the Revolutionary period so it does not seem to be a matter of names simply falling out of popularity.

Sorry if that's a poorly worded question!

I guess the question is would more intense training in the history and culture of a certain period which also involves the study of the culture(s)' language and literature be more or less beneficial than a more general education in history?

I realize this is something of a counter-factual question, but I think it might be answerable to some extent. Various groups of Polynesian peoples settled very nearly ever single island group in the Pacific that has a supply of fresh water, which suggests they explored all the ones that don't. Given this, why was the Galapagos never settled by ocean-going peoples? Is the distance from any other island groups simply too great?

To clarify, I mean how did it become one of the biggest modern superpowers? I'm Canadian and would like to know why it, of all countries, was able to become the country it is today. I personally don't believe that's it's the "greatest country on the planet" but there are many who do. What are the reasons behind this if it is in any way true?

I'm seeing claims that it was common for muslims to castrate many of their slaves, particularly from Africa. Is there evidence to support this?

I just rewatched band of brothers, and in the episode on the battle of the bulge the medic is asking everyone if they have any morphine left. So just curious about it.

1. I was rewatching "Apocalypse: The Second World War" on Netflix when I noticed something quite strange. In the first episode "Aggression" (covers 1933-1939), the narrator comments that Hitler was uncertain about what to do with the Jewish people (immediately after he conquered Poland), and that: "as long as the war is going well for him, he considers deporting them to the east or even shipping them to Madagascar." And that it's only when the "outcome of the war becomes less certain that Hitler and his accomplices unleash a frenzy of hate and murder... The Final Solution." How true is this? A quick search on the Final Solution tells me that the actual policy was formulated in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference, so what was the viewpoint of Hitler in Mein Kampf (personal?) and of the NSDAP (publicly) between 1933 until 1942?
2. Why did the Allies not declare war against the Soviet Union when it co-invaded Poland with Nazi Germany? While the Allies may have seen the USSR at one point or another as a deterrence against Hitler's aggressions and therefore a potential ally, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the fact that the Red Army invaded Eastern Poland (16 days after Nazi Germany invaded Western Poland) should means that the Soviet is in all sense a co-aggressor of the war.

P.S. Sorry for the long read and my terrible English. Thank you for reading.

I've recently come across some interesting material comparing the stories of Christ with Krishna. Aside from the similarity in names, there are also very clear analogues in their nativity stories, teachings and the way they are a part of a trinity, while being incarnations of God and human at he same time. While there are of course very few if any contemporary sources about the historical existence of either, is it possible that Hindus or travellers who had come into contact with their faith could have been active in Jerusalem around 0 BC and spread stories about Krishna, influencing or even creating the legend of Christ?

I understand that various contingent factors could cause famine, but on average, how well-fed were medieval peasants? I've heard some (non-historians) claim that they were barely fed enough to survive and work, and that they were always on the brink of starvation, but I have a hard time believing this.

Loving V Virginia was a Supreme Court case in 1967 deciding that there can be no law against mixed race marriages. The Virginia law had language specifying a person classified as "white" could not marry a person classified as "colored". Does this mean that marriages where neither party was white were legal. Were non white mixed marriages more acceptable?

I've always had a hard time getting into history because in my head, I'm studying statues and oil paintings and not human beings. A few years ago I was doing some reading up on the American Revolution and it was all just a bunch of names of key players, but I had a hard time getting invested in the people, or emphasizing with them as people for that matter. It is hard for me to understand who is who, who is allegiant to whom, etc. They are just names to me.

I recently started getting into the Hamilton soundtrack and that has resparked my interest in the era and the events leading up to the war and its aftermath. Now I can read about all these principles like John Laurens, Lafayette, Burr, etc., and have a human backstory that provides context. This makes it so much easier to dig deeper into reading. It puts a human spirit to the name - which I have a hard time doing just reading text books.

My question is, absent an award-winning Broadway musical or good movie on a historic subject, how do I get to the same level of empathy for historic events or people that I get when it is presented in a medium that I really enjoy, such as the Hamilton musical? How do I read text books and find the "story" that interests me to dig deeper?

E.g. Multiple cases of emperors committing incest, Caligula and his horse, etc.

Sorry if this has been asked before, I'm in a waiting room at a doctors office and curious.

How have archaeological methods been used to greater our understanding of women in ancient Greece and Rome? What are the advantages of archaeology that we do not get from, say, ancient texts?

Thank you!

Title. It was a failure yes but honestly I don't see it mentioned at all in most books and conversations of about ww2. It was an important learning case for d day that killed more Canadians then D-day its self. Do we just really not like to hear our failures in the west?

Follow up questions, what was the point of the raid to begin with? Were they trying to secure a port for an invasion in. 1942? Trying to test landing? Trying to surprise the Germans and raid supplies and take some prisoners?

In 1912, Tibet's population was 1,160,000. By 1928 it had fallen to 372,000 - a decrease of 67.9% How and why did Tibet experience such a huge population decline? Was this due to the Chinese Civil War in 1927?

I have been watching The Man in the High Castle, a show about a postwar occupation of the USA by the Axis. While an Axis victory to this extent is of course beyond ludicrous, it made me wonder about worst-case planning by the Allies.

The Soviets, in my understanding, are not likely to have surrendered regardless of circumstance. The entrenched ideological differences, plus Nazi policies of extermination, plus the centralization around Stalin leads me to believe that they would never have surrendered, but would have fought until serious military resistance was impossible. Did they have plans for that eventuality and after?

Did the Americans have any similar plans in the event of a total defeat? Did the USA make plans for a negotiated peace in the face of defeat, say in the event of the fall of the USSR and/or the UK? Did the government have any contingency plans to respond to occupation?

What is this tool and how was it used?

How do I post a photo for this tool on Reddit?

Did the Democratic Party attempt to tie themselves to unions some time before the great depression, or did they only move to supporting unions and union rights after FDR was president?

Also, was the Democratic Party the first major party to support unions, or did other political parties in the United States (other than the socialist party) supportive of them as well?