[deleted]

I've recently rediscovered a strong interest for history and came accross the "Revolutions" podcast by Mike Duncan. Pardon my ignorance on this as I am not highly educated in history, but after introducing George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, he simply refers to him as "Buckingham" afterwards. Is this just a way to alleviate the content because of the abundance of different names, or is there a reason behind this?

I've always wondered, you see people get scared by usual day-to-day things: some are scared of flying on an airplane, others have various phobias, indeed there are lots of young people genuinely scared by a university exam. What would happen if you take your average human being, and subject them to something orders of magnitude more horrific than the above everyday examples, what would happen if you give them a rifle and a uniform, and put them in a WW1 trench, say during the Battle of the Somme? What do we know about the psychological impact of warfare during WW1 ? What are the documented panic attacks, anxiety disorders, long-lasting mental health conditions, suicides? Above all....how on earth did men gather the strength within them to go over the top?

I was just reading the etymology of "Nazi", and was amused to read that it was a play on words from their enemies, sounding like both the german word for "national socialist" and a shortening of the common Bavarian name Ignatius (insinuating a stupid rural person).

This must have started as a joke within Germany, but it's interesting to me that this became the "official" translation of the party's name around the world. I'm curious how this happened, and in what timeline. Thanks!

There are no major geographic landmarks on the border with France and Italy and I know that the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont used to own both sides of the border before it unified Italy. What happened?

Have there been any studies done on the effect on gold/treasure/pyramid building and how such a vast waste of resources had a detrimental effect on the economy of ancient Egypt? Like if you buried that much gold in the ground today and weren't able to use it as collateral for goods/services, I'd image it'd have a pretty devastating effect as well. Lots of Ancient Cultures (including those in China and South America) put lots of resources into goods/offering to "the gods," only to never be able to use those resources again. Have there been any studies on the impact of what would've happened had these societies not done that?

Thank you!

I'm reading Undaunted Courage, and I've also seen documentaries about the Corps of Discovery, and in both, they take about "sending specimens and letters" back to Thomas Jefferson. Does that mean men from the expedition went back? There's obviously no mail system beyond the Mississippi...in the book they are almost to the Rockies and they sent back some magpies and a prarie dog. It doesn't say how.

For instance, if Obama left the White House and became mayor of Chicago or something.

I recently returned from a trip to the Czech Republic and Austria, and spent a lot of the trip in more historic areas of the city. While there, I noticed that the churches (all the same denomination, Roman Catholic) were very close to one another - for instance, Prague had about half a dozen very large churches within a 5 minute walk of the old town square, without including things like small chapels in other buildings. Of course, some are older than others, but at some point all of these churches would be in use simultaneously. This made me wonder - did people living in these areas usually go to the same church, or alternate between them? Were there particular social conventions around who went where (i.e. all of the aristocrats go to one church, another is used by merchants, etc)? Were the churches in a sort of competition with one another?

[deleted]

[deleted]

If not true, how long ago was the last one?

How do you usually do your research on a subject? What sources do you use and how does the research process looks overall? Can you give any tips? Thanks in regard.

Vikings are often depicted as being exceptionally tall and well built for their time. I know that they kept no written records of themselves and every written account we have of them is written by the people who they invaded, so they may have depicted them this way deliberately. Their diet seemed to be more protein and fat rich compared to most of the people they invaded and they seemed to live quite active lifestyles. These days as well most northern Europeans are tall and well built. How true is the depiction of vikings being exceedingly tall and well built for their time.

I read that there were still horses and camels in North America around the time the first humans moved in, and that their extinction may in fact be connected to human activity. Why didn't the humans domesticate these animals like their Eurasian counterparts did?