Whether it's a question you that piqued an interest you never knew you had or an answer that made you see the world in a new way, everyone's got a favorite thread or two in AskHistorians.

So...what are they?

As a reminder, reddit will only auto-tag users if there are three names or fewer in a post. If you have more than three links, please consider PMing the users involved with a link to the thread rather than extended it out to an infinite series of posts with 3 lines.

As with yesterday, this thread is in contest mode/random display order--don't worry about your reply being late to the party!

As an example, I was reading about the Modoc War, where the Modoc people of California fought the US Army. The Modoc strength was only 120 warriors. Did the Modoc believe they could secure indefinite independence from the American empire, or were they trying to die fighting rather than submit to US rule?

I was looking at old pics and realized most men wore suspenders. Was it just a fashion thing or did it have a practical purpose? I know you wear suspenders to hold/adjust your pants but belts were old technology at the time.

I know that the staunch mobilization of Latinos in California turned that state blue while incoming New Yorkers played a role in ensuring Democratic dominance in Vermont, but why did Illinois go from marginally supporting one party or another by a few points in close elections to consistently voting 10%+ for the Democratic candidate? Was there a demographic development that occurred?

So its common knowledge that Adolf Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions through his policies and war. But is there any evidence that he ever actually personally killed someone? Whether in his early years, during his time as a runner in the first world war, interwar period, or command from 1933-1945?

If the later Gregorian chant developed out of Old Roman and Gallician chanting, what happened to the more sophisticated musical features of those earlier traditions? Old Roman chant features things like background harmonization as well as more sophisticated melodic structures which seem to have disappeared in Gregorian chant. Does anyone know of any historical reason for the simplification of liturgical music and the eventual victory of the Gregorian tradition?

P.S. Not sure if this would better in a subreddit devoted to music, but I'm more interested in historical, social or political aspects of the question than the music theory.

If yes, what was the process? Did the 2nd Constitutional Congress have anything to do with this process? If no, what were they if not admitted?

I have been contemplating this question for awhile now and I could see the plausibility of both answers but I wonder which set of ideals are more common in the community?

I've heard things in movies and TV shows something along the lines of "Jazz music is what messed him up"

If you could point to a source regarding this, it would be really helpful as well. Thanks.

[deleted]

Jerry Lee Lewis' cut of Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On hit no. 3 on the pop chart, no. 1 on the R&B chart, and no. 1 on the country chart. As I understand it, the R&B chart was intended to be based on the preferences and sales of black customers.

But how did they figure all this out? Obviously they weren't basing it on the performer's race, Jerry Lee Lewis is white. Were they taking sales data from record sellers in black areas, as opposed to white ones?

How did this work for the country charts? Would Jerry Lee Lewis have been classed as a country artist because of his music, not his race?

In movies and video games, the American bazooka and German Panzershreck are used against infantry all the time. But I know they were both designed to be anti-tank weapons. Were they that effective when fired at infantry?

Hello! I have an upcoming exam, and also a lecture in a class I'm currently taking regarding European history.

I have some questions concerning the part where we get to Napoleon. I'm familiar with the facts presented in my book, as well as material I have read online. But I'm kind of stuck regarding the prompt my professor gave me with regards to Napoleon.

My professor has asked me to analyze Napoleon's regime. But in particular, she also wants me to look into how he combined democratic and authoritarian methods of rule.

Obviousy, I'm stuck on the democratic side of things here. I understand that he was often portrayed to be an efficient civil administrator, pushing for the development of progressive ideals such as the promotion of education, arts, and literature, as well as the introduction of the Napoleonic code. But I am wondering if these alone are the characteristics of a democracy she is referring to. Any insight would be highly appreciated!