I am very curious about the Spanish Civil War and I was unsure what reasons the anarchists, socialists, and communists would have for killing up to 40,000 people (is this correct even?).

Why was money even a question when our homeland (America for me) was at stake?

Today there are people on the Alaskan and Siberian sides of the strait who have regular contact and cultural exchange. Was this also the case in ancient times, more or less continuously since the population of the Americas? Or was it established more recently?

Right now, Mario 64 is considered to be one of the greatest video games of all time but how was it perceived in 1996? I mean more than just game reviews giving it a 5/5 or a 10/10, did people back in 1996 believe it was one of the greatest video games ever made?

Ignoring support so losers using cannons and such, when did your average infantry soldier get switched from a sword to a musket?

As I understand it, the civilizations of Mesoamerica built large, opulent palaces for their noble classes out of stone and plaster in their large urban centers.

However, I'm always struck by the lack of ceramic roof covers in the ruins of these palaces, as the region had a tradition of complex ceramicism. My professor told me that they probably used thatch, as we know that this is how the commoners built their houses, but I can't help but wonder if a Maya or Mexica noble would be satisfied with using the same roofing material as their peasant subjects, and would opt for having tiles made of ceramic. Something I'm sure they would have had the capability to produce.

By weaponry, I mean to include any tool which could readily serve as a weapon, like small knives, large sticks, or even hammers.

Sources will sometimes casually mention that this gun or that gun could penetrate the mantlet of a given tank at a given distance, or that a part on another tank was reinforced after the discovery of a flaw or weak spot in a portion of its armor.

Targeting weak points in opposing tanks is also an important part of gameplay in popular armor-themed video games such as War Thunder, Red Orchestra, Men of War, etc...

Of course, gamers today have access to far better information than ordinary soldiers seventy-plus years ago. At the same time, details like these do provide an edge in combat.

So how much of this kind of knowledge, if any, was used by tank crewmen during the conflict itself?

Were gunners simply taught to target center mass and hope for the best? Or were they well informed about the armor layout of enemy vehicles to the point that they would specifically, say, target an enemy Panther's mantlet or shot trap?

Or was the state of affairs somewhere in between, where a crewman might be educated about the proper engagement distance necessary to penetrate an enemy tank, but not know enough to deliberately target vulnerable locations?

I'm not thinking of permutations of extant surnames that originated in the US - misspellings at Ellis Island, etc - but wholly new surnames which did not exist until at least the formation of the new world colonies.

Are there examples of brand new surnames popping up in the US or other parts of the colonized new world? Maybe surnames that reflect unique circumstances, occupations, or institutions that didn't exist prior? Or were surnames already too fossilized by the time the colonies were established?

I understand the sundial and how that would work during daylight, but what would be done once the sun set? Was it just the end of the day and no time was tracked until morning?

I was thinking about crazy people that sort of walk around claiming "IM JESUS CHRIST". I then thought (being interested in Greeks Mythology and Gods) did people do this back then?

If so, how did people react? Did they believe?

I know that they were largely responsible for their tribe's military activities and successes/failures however from what I've read (John Thorley, Aristotle) it doesn't make it abundantly clear whether they themselves fought in combat. Considering Themistocles was only 30 when he became Archon in 493 B.C, book ended by his appointment as General, I assume he would still have been of fighting age.

It appears to me that Montgomery simply filled Auchinlecks shoes, waited for time to pass and resources to build up, and then struck only when he knew he would win. Does this really count as good generalship?, or should it be assumed that Auchinleck, or Gott for that matter would have done the exact same thing.

Also how much would you guys argue luck played into Montgomery gaining the credit? From Gott being killed whilst flying there to take command from Auchinleck, to Stumme dying on the second day of the battle, and most importantly Rommel not being present it seems that luck played a considerable part in Montys victory.

Would the opposing side strip them of valuables? Was that considered unchivalrous?

Or was it only used outside of Germany or perhaps only in the Anglosphere?

Working on research project on the Confederacy, and a number of letters and newspapers from the time criticize the Emancipation Proclamation for inspiring slave insurrection. Citing the Haitian Revolution, Confederates across the board seem to be scared shitless about a slave insurrection, and they make frequent reference to massacres in Haiti. Are they correctly categorizing the level of violence in the Haitian Revolution?

[deleted]