Hello. I've always wondered of the transportation of the Statue of Liberty. I don't mean the top Google photos.

This sub continuously delivers with pictures of a distant time none of us have ever seen, much less been able to understand other than a few snapshots of that time. Just hoping to get a better understanding from those who have delved deeper than the common Google search.

EDIT: I should clarify that this question is mainly historiographical. That is to say, the strengths and weaknesses of the primary sources aside (and I think there's actually a fair amount of Greek/Roman information on the matter), why aren't there many good (English) secondary sources on this matter?

I’m researching the contemporary enemies of the Roman army in the Republican period to provide comparative (or contrasting) material for the Roman army itself. Specifically, I am working on the matter of morale, with constructs such as ‘warrior culture’, ‘fighting spirit’ and ‘combat motivation’ being central to what I’m looking for. I have been having trouble in course of my research finding good secondary sources specifically on the matter of Celtic and/or Germanic warfare. The books I do tend to look into like “Ancient Germanic Warriors” (Speidel 2004) “Lords of Battle” (Allen 2007) do not seem to be well reviewed or particularly useful for academic work. Perhaps the best article I have read on this matter is the chapter by Wells, “The Germanic and Danubian Transfrontier Peoples” (Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Ancient World, 2013, 589-600), but it is quite short.

There are valuable primary sources, such as the countless Roman accounts of battles with Celtic and Germanic enemies and the more analytical Germania of Tacitus (which I admit I haven’t read in detail) as well as the great detail given by Caesar in the Bellum Gallicum. Caesar has a long digression about Germans in particular which as far as I know is plagued by ethnographic clichés, but he knew a thing or two about the Gauls and so is the best primary source on the matter.

Later periods regarding the successors to these early Roman-era Celts and Germans, the Germanic successors in the Medieval period, appear to be better researched. I wonder if I should utilise some of the well-regarded works on this period to enlighten me (such as Bachrach’s “Early Carolingian Warfare” and Halsall’s “Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West 450-900), but I fear the peril here is that these cultures had developed so far from the period I am looking at (and the literary evidence remains so thin) that these later military cultures will tell me little about their predecessors.

I can’t access my university database at the moment, so that is hugely limiting the material I can access (though I recall there being some mid 20th century stuff floating around). But it seems bizarre to me that there is such a dearth of good scholarly work on the military aspect of Gallic and Germanic societies in the Republican and early Imperial Roman period. Can anyone enlighten me with some of the insights they have picked up on this matter? If what I say is true, why is it there is little good work on this matter (is it merely the lack of non-Roman evidence)? Can anyone direct me to some valuable reading? Thank you for your help in advance.

Geographical (Hazardous terrain) issues alongside unnecessary use of resources, and Switzerland's neutral stance would, I assume be the main reasons...

If the war in Europe was more successful (in the long-term) for the Germans, would an invasion been likely?

[deleted]

In movies and TV shows many people are turned away from enlisting into the armed forces due to things like flat feet. Was this common? Also, were there any standards regarding attributes like height, weight, strength? Finally, did these standards differ between any of the branches of the armed forces?

First of all, I would just like to thank you so much for answering my question. I aspire to be an historian and I am working hard to pursue it.

What I wanted to know is -- why was there a surge in the use of cocaine and crack in the 80s? Can you give me some reasons?

Thank you so much and sorry if this question is dumb -- I am not familliar with this subreddit yet.

The Cunard Mauritania, Lusitania, and Aquitania represented a significant commitment to using turbine engines, but the White Star Olympic, Titanic, and Britannic used a mix of reciprocating engines to drive their two main propellers, with the smaller center-line screw being turbine driven.

Wikipedia notes that White Star had found the configuration to be more efficient than all-turbine or all-reciprocating designs, but I was hoping for more information on what criteria and research each company was basing their decision on, as well as how the two disparate propulsion systems were received at the time. I.e. was one considered more sensible/unusual by the public or engineering community at the time?

If I am correct, it is one of the first episodes of the first season. The scene in which I refer is where Lt. Speir's is giving German PoW's cigarettes, then all you hear in the next scene is Thompson gun fire.

Edit: minor, grammatical error

[deleted]

I'm currently reading a historical fiction novel about him, and he's described as fair skinned with curly blond hair. However, I've read online that this is false, and that he was brown skinned, as in Arab looking, and some other saying that he was even potentially black. I have no idea which to give most credit, so was wondering if some of you erudite folks here could enlighten me?

Thanks so much!

I'm curious to know if any "old blood," Patrician families survived the fall of the western Roman empire and stayed prominent in Byzantium or Western Europe.

I know that many of the "old, old blood," senators were culled during the civil wars, but perhaps some of the "newer" senators from before 200 A.D. managed to make the leap as, "nobles," in western Europe or senators in Byzantium?

[deleted]

Why are they a thing? Are they actually from Scotland? Was there a reason behind them?

Did they have any kind of presence in Parliament before Mosolini? Was there a chance of then flipping to the soviets side at any point? Were there protests, slow downs, strikes of any kind during the war?

How eccentric or odd could a person be in the 1920s without getting locked away in an asylum? Today I think the standard is that you have to be a danger to yourself or others but in the old days you just had to be "Insane" I believe. So what qualified as Insane?

If there is any discussion of potatoes in the sources it would be a big bonus.

While Ötzi the Iceman was roaming the Alps with his people there were already advanced civilizations in the Mediterranean basin and, as far as I know, people from the Neolithic were still somehow nomadic.

How likely is that someone like Ötzi encountered, or knew about one of the more advance civilizations like the Minoans, Egypt or Mesopotamia?

I appreciate history and am interested in it but my ability to have a deeper understanding of it sucks. So this may be a stupid question, please bear with me.

Between 1940 leading up to D-Day, how exactly were the French able to communicate with the allies and it's desires to be liberated from Nazi German?

The Nazis occupied the country for 4 years and I assume under tight control. I would imagine that France in a position to either integrate with Germans and accept control or conspire with the allies to become liberated - how exactly were they able to do this without most of France being put into a concentration camp? Or was this more an understanding that France was an ally and simply a known objective to liberate the country regardless if they wanted to or not?

Sorry if this question is kind of stupid, having a hard time phrasing exactly what I'm trying to say but thank you for any responses.