[deleted]

Related question: would it have been common during the time when hysteria was a thing to tell your friends "I'm going to the doctor to be treated for hysteria," or was it more private?

Did they remain in DC for a period of time? Did they vote on any bills in between the time of the secession negotiations and actual secession?

Just in case it isn't clear, I'm talking about both Representatives and Senators.

One century they're conquering Europe, the next they're gone! Why didn't they stick around as a group?

[deleted]

With the early release of Battlefield One, for the first time in recent memory, players are given the opportunity to be thrust into the fray of the First World War.

Military Shooters have set an expectation of the use of fully or semi automatic weapons, with the exception of perhaps shotguns and some "sniper rifles".

My question boils down to, what weapons were issued to Front Line soldiers in the Great War on the Eastern and Western Front? Also in what availability and usefulness were some of the more exotic/revolutionary weapons like the MP-18, BAR, and Remington Model 8 in the context of this war?

From what I had always understood, your average front line foot soldier was issued a bolt action rifle such as the SMLE Mk III, G98, or Springfield 1903. I also was under the impression that MP-18 and other automatic weapons were a rare sight on the battlefield, reserved for specialist/elite forces.

Thanks in advance for your answers!

I've read Bernard Cornwell's King Arthur series, and his characters worship a variety of Roman, Christian, and Celtic deities. Is this historically accurate?

Curious about what we know of the early reactions to the invention, debates over if it violated the relevant hadith, positions of different schools of thought, differences regarding men vs women and children vs adults, popular reception, etc.

Given that many Muslims would come to find themselves ruled by European empires, are there any accounts of the reactions to the odd reporter or visiting anthropologist taking a shot? What about photographing Muslim mosques and holy sites?

To clarify: I've heard two polar opposite opinions on this. One is that Nazi equipment was absolutely brilliant, marvels of engineering, etc., especially when compared to Allied gear ("Ronsons light up in one hit" or something else along those lines). The other is that it was worthless compared to Allied equipment, the steel was terrible quality, they caught fire every ten feet, etc.. So, my question is, which of these is more accurate? Are they both true to a degree, or are they both just propaganda? And, more importantly, as in the title, where did they come from in the first place?

Hello - I am sure this has been asked before, but Reddit's search feature isn't working for me, so if someone can point me to the existing answer I would appreciate it. I am almost finished reading this book and found it fascinating (and rather depressing).

I have mentioned it once or twice on Reddit (not in this sub) and have received rather hostile responses plus the usual downvotes. Someone accused him of loving murderous dictators, for example, but Zinn is clearly very much opposed to that sort of thing.

I am not at all a historian, but I found his approach enlightening and interesting, so am curious to hear how he is regarded among historians. He appears to view history through a 'class struggle' lens.

Thank you!

I am a very amateur student of history, and I feel somewhat ashamed of how little I know about the British Empire in India. What would be one or two good histories, accessible to the layman, that might give me a better sense of my home nation's history on the sub-continent?

Hello! I am new to this sub. I find history really interesting, but feel like sometimes the intriguing aspects of history get lost in the education and academic system.

I have heard for a few years now that there was more to the American civil war (Union vs Confederacy) than just pro-slavery vs pro-abolition. When I try and look this up on google, I tend to find links that say "No, ____is wrong, slavery was in fact the only major issue" or I just find vague few sentence responses on an opinion article that state that agricultural commodities and manufacturing was also a major influence. I figured this would be the perfect sub to do so. I'm not a scholar in this area and would really like to learn more about behind-the-scenes that lead to the outbreak of the American Civil War and if it, in fact, true that there is more to the ACW than just slavery itself.

Thank you!

Skeletons dance across the pages of late medieval manuscripts from western Europe--the ultimate memento mori, the ever-present reminder of humans' earthly fate. To a modern extreme sports enthusiast, skeletons are something with a lot of parts that exist to be broken at least once. And to an archaeologist or historian, human skeletons offer critical insight into the past, especially in areas where the pens of scribes were silent.

Tell us a little about how your field considers skeletons--the results of an archaeological dig, their symbolic importance in art, whatever skeletons you can find in your field's metaphorical closet!

In ancient or medieval battles, when two armies committed their first line of massed infantry on each other; what happened at the far end edges of both battle lines in regards to flanking?

You cannot flank the enemy maniple/unit in the center of a battle-line but you can do it at either of the edges.

When the two opposing enemy lines collide, the front-rank men will engage each other but whats stopping men [at the both edges of battle lines] from the back of either line to break formation and move around the flank and hit the enemy line in the back?