I also recall reading about British troops briefly using trench fortifications during their New York campaign during the war for American Independence. Would those trenches be used similarly to how we perceive their 20th century counterparts? Thanks AskHistorians.

I've read multiple times that Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 only to prevent an imminent attack by the Soviet Union. These claims are usually made by people who have a certain agenda and their sources are questionable to say the least. But I was nevertheless wondering if there is something to back them up?

The kind that you see with the Founding Fathers of the US, late 17th aristocracy?

So from what I understand brothels were pretty popular during medieval times and contraception didn't yet exist as we know it today. So the big question is how did prostitutes avoid getting pregnant?

The first houses were AFAIK squatted in 1970 in the Netherlands and one thing that was important to squat an empty building was to have a table, a chair and a bed with you. By using those items of furniture you were officially claiming to be living in the building.

There is a reference in an old archive regarding squatting of land in the 'Veenkolonien' (peat colonies, in the north of the Netherlands) from the 1920's or before, that also mention the need to have a table, a chair and a bed in a shack made of turf/sod before you can claim an unused patch of land (you needed to be able to build that shack within a day).

So I think it is safe to assume you needed at least a roof + the three items of furniture mentioned, in order to lay a claim.

But yet another person claimed that this was also used way earlier in America and was actually introduced by the Dutch and was later changed into driving a stake into the ground.

Is this true? How far does this go back? Where did this come from? Or are we talking about two different things here - squatting in NL/EU and land claiming in America?

I don't know if it would otherwise count as the official language is Italian, but just in case, I don't count Vatican City.

Edit: So a couple people think I should be more specific, and there have been fair points raised with regards to that. So I'll add:

1. I'm talking about Vulgar Latin - I'm not too concerned with whether or not someone gives me an example of a regional version of it, as long as it's not totally foreign to "standard" (i.e. Italian Peninsula and nearby area I suppose) Vulgar.

2. It has to be spoken by a significant portion of the population of an area, whether that be a solidly populated town, a city, territory/region/state, doesn't really matter too

3. and the most important point, I think - I understand language is fluid, and it was foolish of me to not try to set some arbitrary criteria ahead of time. When Beowulf was used as an example of still being English, it helped me decide on how I'd like the answer to be: It has to be around (before) the point at which Vulgar Latin speaker from say, the Italian peninsula would have some real difficulty understanding it. Sort of like 1500s English to now, if that's a decent enough example.

That's it really, I've heard abiut this a couple of times. Seems rather unfair if that is the case. Thanks!

Hope the question is specific enough! I'm excited for any answers!

Obviously I'm talking about pre-Christian religion.

I read on Wikipedia that the Romans adopted the tunic from the Greeks in the third century BC. What would a Roman citizen have worn in say 400 or 500 BC?

I am writing a story that takes place in 12th Century England and have had little success with researching these two parts. I would like to be as accurate as possible. Thank you!

I've tried looking through a few pages of search results in Google, Google Scholar, and JSTOR, and can't find out anything about how they were selected when it was first established in 1976.

There are quite a few films focused on the Western Frontier of the US, and I've heard that German culture celebrates it more than most countries in Europe, but I've never been able to find a good explanation, source, or analysis.

Between ancient times and now we hear a whole lot about monarchies, empires, dynasties, and caliphates. Why wasn't democracy a more prevalent part of history if it was introduced so long ago?

I've been reading up on the subject, and all the 19th century expeditions to find the fabled Source (culminating in John Hanning Speke's 1858 discovery of Lake Victoria) seem to have been conducted overland from the south or east. Did any explorer ever attempt to sail south from Alexandria to find the Source? My reading suggests that it was possible, as the winds blow southerly up the river in winter.

First off, my apologies if this is the wrong sub to post in. I'll post it in /r/hinduism if that's better, it just seems like this sub is the most active. The interest in this stems from J. Robert Oppenheimer's speaking of this quote during the atomic bomb test. My question is, for someone who doesn't understand Hinduism all that well, why was this originally said by Vishnu if his role is more so the "protector"? Shouldn't this be more appropriate for the "destroyer" Shiva to say? Or are Vishnu and Shiva just different forms the same deity can take?

Thanks in advance! Let me know if this is a more fitting question for a different sub.