I see photographs of the trials where those being tried are wearing oddly bland bland outfits that look a lot like uniforms removed of all decorations. What were those being tried at Nuremberg required to wear during the processes of the trial?

[deleted]

I've seen this quote mentioned somewhere and it makes me wonder what did he mean by that? What was happening at the time? Can anyone elaborate about the culture and everyday life that would explain his saying?

Edit: I understand the significance of upcoming French Revolution about that time but I am more interested in what he meant by "Doesn't know what the pleasure of living means." It's an interesting statement and now that I think about it, is he talking about the Revolution itself where people are being killed left and right? So the value of life became important for the living like never before? Or is he talking about actual pleasures of live, like perhaps Marie Antoinette's extravagant parties along with aristocracy? Now I am even more confused.

Original: "Qui n'a pas vécu dans les années voisines de 1789 ne sait pas ce que c'est le plaisir de vivre."

Like there are many universal items like water that have different names from country to country, and similar spellings. How did taxi become so universal?

If it helps, assume I'm a member of the Chinook tribe. Being so far removed from the Eastern Seaboard, how long would it take for the news to reach me? What systems allowed the spread of news from tribe to tribe among Native Americans in the late 15th and early 16th centuries?

I know this flagrantly breaks the rules because it isn't a question, and it doesn't have anything to do with History. But, I wanted to write a public thank you to the mods of this sub. If it is removed, at least one mod saw it!

This sub is fascinating, and so content-rich. I can't imagine how much work it must be to be a mod for this sub, and I bet that any time there is a new post, you all think to yourselves, "here we go again". It is easily the most heavily moderated sub I'm subscribed to, but you always seem to make decisions that are in the sub's best interest.

I think if I were a mod for this sub I would be jaded, and start hating most of the people who comment. But, it seems like instead the mods have created a really cool sub.

So, I wanted to personally thank you for all the work you do, and say how much I appreciate it.

Edit 1 - And thanks to the people who take such time to thoroughly answer questions! You're great! I should have thanked you too originally.
Edit 2 - Wow! This made my front page. Feel the love mods!

What I want to know is basically this: The first half of the twentieeth century was extremely crossed by art revolutions. Did the Socialist Revolution boost/hinder its influence in Russian artists? If the historian wants to expand on this, I would be most pleased. Thank you very much.

Throughout the mid-19th century, European armies fielded various types of cavalry. Yet both Union and Confederate cavalry corps operated almost exclusively as dragoons. Why was this? To what extent was this affected by the duties of pre-war US cavalry, and/or the lack of a European-style military establishment?

I remember learning that someone's assassination is the day the person is shot (or otherwise harmed), not necessarily the day they die. So someone can be assassinated months before their death. I can't seem to find any proof of this, though, other than Wikipedia listing the dates of the assassinations I've looked up as the dates of the initial incidents.

Today is the anniversary of William McKinley being shot, although he didn't die for another week. So is today the anniversary of McKinley's assassination?

Do we have any idea, or any educated guesses?

I saw this quote by Napeleon Bonaparte on some website and was wondering if it's real? And if so, was there any context for this?

What I mean to say is, while there might be at least some inspiration for the stories, in the vaguest sense of the word, from real occurrences in post-Roman Britain during late-Antiquity, for all intents and purposes, they are simply stories, and certainly not reflections of any sort of accurate record of history.

But to someone reading or being told these tales from "Historia Regum Britanniae" or later Arthurian Romances of the 12th and 13th centuries, was there a sense of understanding that they were fanciful, or was there some degree of belief in the historicity of what was being related? In short, would Arthur be taken as fact, fiction, or something in between?

Hi all, a few questions:

When did photography become generally known, especially among the middle/upper class British general public?

How did artists react in terms of the work they produced - is this what spurred on some artistic movements (a worry about no longer offering anything relevant)?

When did photography and artists begin to coexist, or painters even making use of photography? Were people still worried about them being replaced by a cheaper method of capturing a moment?

Sorry, lot of questions - hope someone can help :)

What were his motivations for starting a war that would prove to be so costly?

During the periods of the American Revolutionary War, and War of 1812, it's obvious the two nations weren't on the best terms, and by WW1, they're pals. When in this nearly 100 year time frame did the US and UK bury the hatchet?