At the end of WW2, as the Allied forces started defeating their enemies, they would no longer need more military supplies or equipment. I've seen in several articles that they would cancel their contracts with the suppliers. These suppliers in turn would layoff their employees.

North American Aviation was one. They went from a high of 91,000 employees during the war down to 5,000 in 1946. They had orders of 8,000 planes in August of 1945, down to 24 on order a few months later.

How did the average citizen deal with this? There would have been a sizable percentage of the US population that would have been laid off.

How did the industry deal with this?

From everything I've ever read about Dwight D. Eisenhower, the GENERAL, Ike was totally adverse to politicians. Sure, he was forced to deal with the political heavy hitters of WWII, like Churchill and FDR (not sure about Stalin). By all accounts his ability to deal with these types of personalities was perhaps his greatest asset. But, I never remember reading about Ike looking forward dealing with the political snake pit during the war, let alone pursue his own political career after the war. What changed? How did he go from a humble general completely focused on winning the war in Europe, staying out of politics whenever possible, to running for and winning the presidency?

I though goods traveled the world through ancient trade routes, but people themselves would only travel a short part of a trade route.

Edit: The scientist's methodology in the original journal article does not justify the later headline specifying"Chinese skeletons," the people likely came from far closer to Europe than east Asia.

It seems people could travel furthest along a trade route if they were slaves that were bought and sold as goods.

In modern times it seems that "vintage" and "retro" clothing can be fashion statements, whether by wearing new clothes made in older styles, or by wearing actual "old / antique" clothes.

Was this ever something that happened in other historical periods? Or were "vintage" clothes actually only ever thought as "old", and older styles simply seen as "unfashionable"?

Did people employee artists to write notes and letters and act as scribes? I would imagine if you suck at drawing like me, you probably wouldn't be able to write anything. Especially those damn storks.

When a ship required sails and a captain, in the 1700's. Were sailors paid well? Did they work shifts, or did they sleep and work and sleep and work?

The last glacial period ended in about 10,000 BC, which is very ancient in historical terms, but considerably younger than still-existing Australian Aboriginal cultures, for example. Do we know of any ancient legends, folk tales, motifs, etc, that can be reasonably associated with knowledge of an ice sheet in an area where there is currently none?

Apologies if I got any terminology wrong.

It seems like this is the same sort of dispute along the lines of Russia/Crimea, or Israel/Palestine. An occupation and military presence, to the detriment of locals.

I'd like to know more.

Also, how did this alter with the progression of the conflict?

I've just been rewatch Battle of the Bastards (GoT). Now I know it isn't really a history show but the time period is roughly medieval. Did battles usually have a start time? Most films I watch of these sorts of epic battles it seems there's a kinda "we'll meet at 8am for war" kinda arrangement going on. Did they actually make an appointment for battle? Each side agreeing on what time to meet?

Hello, I was reading about Justinian's reconquest and was curious if the byzantine army at the time was far more advanced then a roman army around the time of the western collapse.

Thank you!

As a young adult French male living far in the countryside, how am I informed of my conscription during the Napoleonic Wars (presumably the War of the First Coalition)? Where would I report to when answering the call of duty? What am I thinking? Does this seem unusual to me?

Hi all! I'm currently reading Plutarch's "Fall of the Roman Republic" after my interest was piqued by Dan Carlin's "Death Throes of the Republic" podcast. My question regards Pompey's decision to leave Italy once Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Plutarch notes that there was a lot of confusion as to how much of his army Caesar actually had with him. I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but I recall that it was actually a very small amount, like under a thousand soldiers. Was Pompey under the impression that Caesar had his whole army with him? Was his intelligence that bad?

I just find it puzzling that Pompey would choose to leave the city with Caesar on his way. First off, were things really that tense that Pompey assumed civil war was inevitable and immediate? While things were obviously very tense, I feel like Caesar coming with such a small force didn't necessarily mean that civil war was inevitable just at that moment.

Second off, even if Pompey didn't trust that the soldiers he'd just gotten from Caesar were totally loyal to him, did he really fear that, in the case of Caesar besieging the city, that these troops were so disloyal as to become traitors, thus ceding control of the whole city to Caesar? It seems to me that, even if he questioned their loyalty, they would not have simply laid down their arms and let Caesar capture the city in a military fashion.

Third off, didn't Pompey fear that he'd not regain control of the city? Like I understand that he had a large army in Spain, but how could he have figured it was a better choice to go get that army, rather than staying fortified in Rome (in the case of imminent civil war) and waiting for them to arrive? By choosing to go get his army, wasn't he basically deciding on a long war with Caesar, at minimum, and having to retake the city by siege at worst?

Not sure how good my understanding of the situation is and how obvious some of these answers may be. It's just that, to me, reading it so long after the fact, it seems like Pompey made a huge mistake in leaving the city. Do military historians consider Pompey's actions to be a major mistake? Was this evidence of Pompey's vulnerability later in life to be led around by the Senate? Or was his decision to engage in a long, drawn out war with Caesar actually a good one that, for various reasons & the gift of hindsight, ended up not working out?

As an aside, any further readings you guys could recommend would be highly appreciated. Such a fascinating historical time. Thanks!

I picked up a copy of The Greek Myths by Robert Graves in a local bookstore. Each story comes with notes and explanations by Graves. Is there any value or credence to the author's notes? Should I bother reading them or should I just enjoy the stories?

I'm reading an article where a person found a 120 y/o cannonball and it was destroyed because it was "potentially explosive". My understanding is was cannonballs were just shot puts fired from a big gun.

I will post the link to the article in the comments.