When learning about the Silk Road, we all heard of the interesting and useful things coming from Asia. Silk, spices, animals, porcelain, technology, etc. But there's little account of what came from Europe, besides gold. Wouldn't it have been a massive drain on the wealth of European nations to be bringing in all these things and not making any profit for themselves? And isn't Europe relatively resource poor in things like gold and gemstones too?

If this is the case, how did they sustain trading hard currency for fragile or exhaustible goods for over a thousand years? Did any notable people of the time have opinions on this subject? Here's hoping someone knows more about this subject and can shed some light on how the trade worked back then.

I'm curious if and how people cleaned their teeth prior to the 20th century. Any time or place would be interesting.

P.S.: I'm sorry if this is in the FAQ. I'm on my phone and have trouble accessing it from there.

Looking at the list of German infantry divisions they all have the Motorized or Panzergrenadier added to their name to differentiate them from foot divisions.
The American and British infantry divisions are all uniform in their naming conventions. So where their armies completely mechanized or did mechanization not impact their naming conventions?

I have a BA in History and read through a lot of Russian history in the process. I really enjoy reading about the Romanovs, Peter, Catherine and the USSR among other things. If Putin died today, when could I read about and publicly appreciate his accomplishments from an objective, historical perspective without fear of repercussions?

This question didn't really seem to fit in any of the history subreddits, so I hope here is ok.

I believe that it happened in places, but even smaller cities like my home town of Madison WI used to have rail systems, and it's hard to imagine it being worthwhile to buy them all out. To what degree was it simply shifting markets rather than nefarious anti-competitive collusion?

It was something -ite and it's on the tip of my tongue

If one of the German camp staff were killed or murdered while at the camp, who would have the authority to investigate or who would investigate? The Kripo, SD, Gestapo, or the Geheime Feldpolizei? I know the Kripo had primary responsibility for murder investigations but given the secret nature of the camps who might else be asked to investigate? I am writing a murder mystery set at one of the camps and the camp commandant calls in an outside investigator when there has been a murder spree among the staff.

My grandfather was in the Korean War and has mentioned that he would like a picture of himself in his uniform. I've been trying to find one, but so far I haven't had any luck. Where would you go if you were looking for something like this? I thought about signing up for Ancestry.com to find one, but they require a credit card # even for their "free trial" which I thought sounded a little sketchy. Please let me know what you think!

So, I've been reading up on the rise of Hitler to power, and he was a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party; however, as he grew in power, it's frequently said that it was a fascist state, right? From what I know of political theory, I thought they were on opposite sides of the spectrum; I guess I'm just wondering how such a large switch in political ideology could take place in such a relatively short amount of time.

I read an article about how Russia's planned economy was actually very successful during this time period in terms of advancing from an agrarian state to an industrial one. I'm just looking for more context and information about it! Thank you in advanced.

For my senior history class, I have to do a 2.5k word essay about this question. This essay requires two book sources.

I'm having trouble finding sources for this exact question. If anyone can point out specific books to find out more about this topic, that would be greatly appreciated. Not really asking for an answer to the question, since I would and could find out when I read any sources.

I've heard many theorys, but I've never made sense of it. Did he think an attack from Stalin was imminent? Did he think his forces invincible?

As I understand it -- and I know that this is up for debate, so feel free to correct me, obviously -- the average resident of medieval Europe was somewhat shorter than modern humans.

Were "little people" (which I believe is the preferred nomenclature these days) similarly proportionally shorter?

So I've been reading SPQR - A history on ancient Rome by Mary Beard and ran across mention of some footwear worn by Patricians that Plebeians were not allowed to wear. I'll include the paragraph below for context. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what this footwear was and why they would find it important that only Patricians could wear it?

In 494 BCE,plagued by problems of debt, the plebeians staged the first of several mass walkouts from the city, a combination of a mutiny and a strike, to try and force reform on the patricians. It worked. For it launched a long series of concessions which gradually eroded all the significant differences between patricians and plebeians and effectively rewrote the political power structure of the city. Two hundred years later there was little to patrician privilege beyond the right to hold a few ancient priesthoods and to wear a particular form of fancy footwear.

From what I could gather, the French had a sizeable fleet during the 1930's. I know Nazi Germany loved to "appropriate" captured equipment, an example being Czech tanks that were some of Germany's best weapons in France and Poland. Clearly the French fleet would have suffered in the North Atlantic, but what about the Mediterranean?

Thanks in advance!

William the Conqueror came over and conquered England, becoming king instead of the Anglo-Saxon guy he conquered. That much I know.

And in short order, all the nobility in England were Norman French. That much I think I know.

What I'm wondering about is, what happened to the old bosses? Were they just kicked out of their estates? Killed? Forced to let French people inherit? Something else? I don't really know what the possibilities are here...

A few general other question relating to the Norse in Ireland.

1. Why did the Vikings only set up trading cities on the coast? Why did they never invade, conquer and rule the other Kingdoms? 2)How has the Viking/Norse Culture affected Irish culture and traditions
2. As a male in a family with an abundance of blondes that can lives and traces their roots on the Irish East and South East Coast back hundreds of years, how likely is it that I'm descended from vikings and Scandinavian Settlers?
3. Is their proof of Christians or Irish Pagans converting the the Norse Pantheon in Ireland, or of worshipping of the Norse Gods? 5)What percentage of Ireland is descended from Vikings? At its Height what percentage of Ireland were Norse or Norse-Gaels

I'm half way through Inferno (by Hastings... not Brown) and a heavily recurring theme is the institutional ineptitude of the British and French.

The Soviets had developed the Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, yet it seems they neglected developing (and convincing Stalin of the merits of) a defense in depth/elastic defense doctrine. Yet their failings during Barbarossa are generally attributed to the Stalin's purge/mishandling of the Red Army, not their lack of interwar military thought.

Did the allies develop doctrines that were abandoned in favor of copying German doctrine?

Even if they had planned to "fight the last war," surely they thought hard about how to fight WWI more effectively than before?

How much intelligence was gathered on German doctrines before the war? Did Allies' planners know how the Germans planned to use their tanks? How much intelligence was gained from observing the German invasion of Poland?

(edit) Not sure if only questions about Canada are currently permitted or if I can somehow lose the flair.

And what were theories as to the causes?

And what drugs did they do? Weed? Opium?

so before i shut down this throw away account i'd like to ask this let me off by first stating i'm a current serving member in the Royal Australian Army and during our basic training we are taught everything about our military history from Colonial times to modern times ad nauseum

right so that being said the following is what i have been taught

it surprises me how little people outside Australia actually know about what Australia actually did during WW2 and probably the biggest one was almost single handedly driving the Germans out of Africa i mean Rommel said something along the lines of

"i fear nothing more than an Australian and his rifle but i take great comfort in knowing the English do not know how to utilize them properly" and also

"The Australians training is far Superior to our own"

i also believe the Japanese feared us more than any other allied nation as well some even thinking we were supernatural demons

in my personal experience very few over seas of heard of the rats of tobruk or the siege of tobruk

second is this idea that Australia was "saved" by America any one correct me if i'm wrong (with sources) but what we were taught is America was actually selfish

we asked them a number of times to help but they refused to in any way be it man power weapons or financial help and it was only after we had held off the Japanese long enough that an invasion was no longer logistically possible and Japan was on the Defensive that America decided to send "aid" but there's still this attitude that America saved Australia some how where exactly does this come from?

another quote from Patton i can't find where this quote is from i only heard it mentioned once but when he was asked by a reporter "how long until the war in the Pacific is won?" Patton reportedly responded with "give me a Company of Australian's and i'll have it over in two weeks"

so clearly at the time we had a large amount of respect but these days not very much and this ranges from people who should know this stuff

i remember there was a very recent video game developed that caused controversy because they replaced the ANZACs with American's and when the developers were questioned on why they did that they responded with "Australia was not important enough during WW2 they did nothing notable"

any way i'm not trying to start anything its just we are taught something way different to what the Americans are taught