I have heard about some types of food preservation, but how could a number of men survive on a boat for as long as they did? Sailing from Europe to North America, South America, India, China, etc. How did they contain/ replenish fresh water? What were the rations like? How did you go to the bathroom (#2)? They certainly didn't have a giant refrigerator or desalination machines. Were chores the only cure for boredom? I've always been curious about the logistics of these voyages. Thanks!

Here's a hyper-specific question. I'm looking for an event that I recall reading about (but which I can find no reference to) in which a heavily pregnant Isabella knelt before Richard II to beg mercy for a group of Calais merchants who had somehow offended the Crown. Did I make this up? What's the whole story?

Thanks!

If it exists still, I suspect if it doesn't, that Hitler had it burnt or shredded.

In my experience, it's a pretty near universal standard for things that can be rotated to tighten or loosen them to get tighter when turned clockwise and looser when turned counter-clockwise. (The title of my question is from a mnemonic for the directions that's commonly cited in my dialect.) This is true of things that have a fixed direction (such as screws and sink taps), but also of things like twist-ties that can be fixed either way. (The only common exception of which I'm aware are things like taps for dangerous substances, where the manufacturer wants to prevent them from being released by someone turning the tap without having to think about what they're doing.)

Is this standard as common as it seems? Are there any regions where most or even many things tighten and loosen in the opposite directions?

In regions where this standard is dominant, how did it become so? What was it like before standardization?

Were there people who genuinely believed they might encounter a civilisation more advanced than European ones after exploration and colonisation started in the 16th century, and posed it as a threat by which Europeans should perhaps not even discover further?

Why did the Nazi's call themselves "Socialist" when they were cleary not?

They even added "National" in front of it, while Socialism is per definition "International"?

My understanding is that the Japanese defeat at Midway is was what actually scrapped their plans, with Hawaii being the next target, and eventually the US mainland. But I've also heard arguments that gun ownership was also a contributing factor in deterring mainland invasion plans. Is this a fable or fact?

Persian empires extended from Mediterranean to the Arabian sea, so how come modern day Persians are confined to Iran, while the countries along the Mediterranean are mostly populated with Arabs or Turks?

Did the Roman citizens of Britain feel a different sense of pride for the land they lived on/came from than say, a Roman citizen of Judea? Or was it all universally Roman? I understand that different religions were practiced, but were there regional differences that resulted in varied aspects of Roman culture as well?

I am currently reading "The Dutch Republic Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806" by Jonathan I. Israel and there is mention of unrest caused by "Urban Particularism". I have been trying to google up some examples of what this is but to no avail. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Did people in the dark ages know what year it was? Did the roman empire keep track of the date in a fairly accessible way? Basically when did the average person become able to answer the question what year is it.

I'm not sure if this is the right sub, but I'll go ahead and ask anyway. Say there is a newspaper from 1850 (or whatever) at the library. I can't bring it with me, but I need to work with the article on the front page. So, I take a photo of it, and bring the photo home with me and work from that.

Am I now using a primary or secondary source? (Counting the newspaper as a primary source of course)

Would there be a difference if I take the photo myself (as I then know for a fact it has not been tampered with/edited) or if I get the photo from someone/somewhere else?

With the Hellenistic roots of major cities like Syracuse, and the island's close ties to Rome, I have always come to perceive Sicily as a thoroughly "western" society. This has been reinforced by linking Sicilian and Italian culture during my upbringing.

So, while I now know understand the uniqueness of the Sicilian identity, I want to know what effect the Arab occupation of the island from 827-902AD had on that identity's development.

I realize this covers a very large period so it may be difficult to narrow it down, but I've always been curious about it. The Sumerians wrote about their love of beer, and wine plays a central role in the literature of Greece, Rome and the Bible. Were these beverages anything like our modern versions in taste? What about composition and how it was served?

I found that figure in "The wages of destruction" by Adam Tooze (sourced from Frieser, Blitzkreig-legende, 428)

I'll keep this as brief as possible. My current major is accounting because my parents(and basically everyone on the internet) told me it was a secure major, with good job prospects, and decent pay. Im having second thoughts about this now though, as i've also read that accounting is extremely grueling and not particularly gratifying. As long as I can remember ive loved history/politics and would talk about it with anyone who listen. If the whole "do what you love, not what pays well" adage is true, then I would honestly like to have a job where I get to research/teach history or social studies. Im sure if I applied myself in college I could get Ph D in history/related subject and become a professor. Im not sure though. Does anyone know the how to job market is for professors in social studies?

Sorry if this is incoherent.

I have a class this semester where the professor started the introduction to linux with a story about UNIX, saying it originally was conceived so two AT&T/Bell Labs employees could play Pac-man over a network. I can't find a reference to this story anywhere.

Were Krebs and Burgdorf as culpable as Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel? Krebs and Burgdorf, of course, committed suicide inside the Führerbunker, while Jodl and Keitel were convicted of war crimes and hanged. Had Krebs and Burgdorf been captured, would they have also been tried? If yes, would they also have been convicted of war crimes and hanged? I ask this because I recently watched the movie, "Downfall." In this movie, Krebs and Burgdorf perhaps come off as somewhat sympathetic characters, at least in comparison to rest of the German leadership.

Hey. If this is inappropriate for this sub, I sincerely apologize. I've been looking for a good WWI casualty dataset. I see lots of casualty totals, eg. Germany suffered x casualties in WWI, but nothing more granular than that, such as casualties by month. Are you all aware of any resources that could help me out, or have any suggestions for where to look?

I know that casualty counts vary widely depending on source, but this is more for a fun project on my own than anything intensely rigorous.

Thank you guys so much in advance.

Was Hitler banking on luck that his plan would work or was there a real good probability that he would succeed?