I know that the basic gist is "Germans advanced trough Belgium, circumventing the Maginot line." But how come there was no resistance afterwards? And how come the French were so reliant on the Maginot line in the first place? One theory I heard is that the French politicians weren't all that opposed to Nazism and were okay with capitulation.

It feels like French, Arabic or Italian have had periods of artistic and scientific domination, but now is the first time a language has been adopted as a global common one. Why so ?

For example, if it is hot out and the line for the "whites only" water fountain is really long, but the negro water fountain is open. Is there a penalty for just using the negro fountain?

Let's go with the US for specitivity, but any country will do. I saw a quote from 1943 where a general talked about a computer as if everyone should know what it is. When would the average American have known what "computer" meant? What would they have associated it with?

Seeing as the Elefant tank destroyer possessed a very high kill to destruction ratio of 26.5:1 during the Battle of Kursk (320 enemy tanks destroyed to 13 Elefants being destroyed), at least according to wikipedia, would that make the Elefant an actual example of German armoured superiority?

ELI5 if possible

I did try a search here, but maybe I failed with my search terms, because I vaguely remember seeing a discussion.

The US had an initial great fear that, just after Pearl Harbor, Japan would attack the US's west coast. Of course Japan did not do much more than eventually shell an oil platform and launch explosive balloons.

I'm wondering the exact reasons why they didn't attack, but in particular what the US might have been known or plausibly surmised on 7 December 1941 and the next few days. The items that come to mind:

• As I understand it, Japan's goal was to dominate East Asia. Capturing China, or at least the Good Parts edition of China, was the first means to the end. Seizing resources to the south was the means to the means to the end. Attacking the US was the means to the means to the means to the end. In short, they probably considered the US war to be an N-th level distraction to what they really wanted.
• Fuel: did they have enough tankers? Did they have enough fuel?
• Ammo and other equipment: had they gotten the 6 carriers to the US west coast, how much damage could they have done? I suspect there weren't many game-changing big juicy targets.
• Risk: I expect they wanted the carriers and their planes for the Southern Resource Area, to take it and then to defend it. (So N-th level distraction, supra.) Putting a major fleet where the US could reach it with all the US's resources seems very risky. ... but did anyone think in December 1941 that carriers were so crucial, or was that a later realization? Without that realization, Japan or the US might have thought "eh, expend the carriers, they're expensive toys anyway".

But all that is my speculation.

I'm reading a book about the history of mathematics. It doesn't say anything about English people before 1120 AD, when Adelard of Bath translated Euclid's Elements from Arabic to Latin. So I was wondering what the English knew about mathematics from 450 to 1100 AD. Were there any mathematicians? Did people know anything about arithmetic or geometry? When did they start using Roman numerals, and what did they use before that?

Limiting to those decades only because... well, that's when I was in school and I don't know what was taught before or after that.

I'm incredibly fascinated by the cultures that existed in North American before European contact, but I learned absolutely nothing about them in school - in fact I only came to know about them by visiting museums in different parts of the country, and when I first learned about the massive diversity of cultures that existed before European colonization - and the decline of those cultures even before "our" arrival - my mind was blown. It's literally a whole other world that I never even heard of growing up. I was taught European history, post-colonial American history, and a little bit about the Aztecs, but nothing at all about pre-colonial North America. Was that the standard curriculum in American schools, and if so, why wasn't Native American History taught? Is it taught now?

What was expected of commoners who wanted to join the Navy? What was the process of joining?

Was it possible for commoners to become officers or was that reserved exclusively for aristocrats?

Thomas Jefferson once claimed that if he could only go to heaven but with a party, he wouldn't go. Indeed the word "party" (at least in the context of a political party) never appears in the Constitution. Why was this?

Also, did they have a change of heart at some point, or did they simply create America's political parties out of practical necessity?

[deleted]

I asked this question a month ago but didn't get a response so thought I'd try again!

For more context, I've just finished reading Tom Holland's Rubicon which is the first and only thing I've ever read on Ancient Rome.

I feel that he spent a huge amount of time giving a general narrative of the history of the Republic, focussing a lot on the generation preceding Caesar and then Pompey & Caesar.

I feel I have a pretty decent grasp of events and some of the indirect causes of the fall, e.g. the precedents set by Sulla and his civil wars vs Marius etc etc.

I also understand the narrative around Caesar's rise to prominence, his early political wins, his proconsulship and general amazing winning of glory in Gaul.

But I felt like he (Holland) really raced through the next phase and even though I've literally just read it, I don't really have an appreciation for why Caesar felt he had to march into Rome to defend himself, or why Pompey was opposed to him at this time (although I get that much of the Gallic wars were illegal - is that all it is?).

I also don't have an appreciation for the narrative after Caesar defeated Pompey - how /why did he end up dictator for life and what was the impact of this? Holland mentions this only as an after thought and all of a sudden Caesar has all of Rome in his palm and he's a living God, er what? Did normal Roman's generally think this good or bad? Why was he considered a tyrant?

I know I'm asking a lot here but if someone could help slot these things into place that would be great. I did do a search on here but the topics relating to Caesar are so many and so spurious its easier to ask a new question. That said I'm happy to be pointed to some other thread if someone knows about one.

Many thanks.

I read that Thomas Jefferson expected Lewis and Clark to run into woolly mammoths. Woolly mammoths have been extinct for 10,000 years, except for an isolated population on an island which went extinct something like 3500 years ago. How much did people of this period know about ancient species and where did they get that knowledge?

With the understanding that 1054 was the “formal” conclusion of the East-West schism that had started centuries earlier, and setting aside the theological and organizational differences between the two sides, just how different were the rites between the western and eastern parts of the “same church?” How different would they look to a lay Christian in the fifth century? Eight Century? Tenth century? (Tangential: Did choice of liturgical language rest solely in geography? Did churches use Koine Greek in the west if there large Greek populations, or was that a no-no?)

Specifically, how were cities/villages laid out (scattered, close together)? I can find culture and customs, but not the 'layout' of the land. Sorry if this is silly, I have a hard time grasping this sort of thing.

Floating Features are periodic threads intended to allow for more open discussion that allows a multitude of possible answers from people of all sorts of backgrounds and levels of expertise. These open-ended questions are distinguished by the "Feature" flair to set it off from regular submissions, and the same relaxed moderation rules that prevail in the daily project posts will apply.

What event or person's life needs to be a movie? What makes it so exciting/heartwrenching/hilarious to demand a Hollywood-size budget and special effects technology, or a major miniseries in scope and commitment? Any thoughts on casting?

I was recently given a copy of Walter Isaacson's Benjamin Franklin: An American Life for my birthday. I am currently a grad student and budding historian, so I'm already a little skeptical about a history book written by Isaacson, a journalist by name and trade. He's certainly accomplished in that field and his bio of Franklin has received rave reviews, but I'm just wondering if there's some sort of difference in tone or quality to be wary of before I prioritize reading this above other books written by disciplinary historians. For example, Isaacson has also written successful biographies of Steve Jobs and Henry Kissinger, who have nothing to do with each other or Franklin, while I'd sooner trust a biography by a disciplinary Franklin scholar like Edmund S. Morgan. I hope I've articulated my concern eloquently enough.