Have people always measured in seconds, minutes, hours? I know it hasn't always been that way I know people used to just measure it day and night and by the seasons but when did we start using the measurement of time that we used today?

And what’s the story to their different calendars?

Random thought, Is there any recorded evidence or similar of a FT-17 light tank, damaging a Panzer (I-V) to the point of non repair or even destruction of said vehicle?

I'm an undergraduate and I have a paper due tomorrow night. I have been doing research on the Aztec uses of their native wine, pulque, and its development through colonial times into the early modern era.

My research was going really well, until I found a paper that had been done on the exact same topic. It argues the same point as mine, and uses a lot of the same sources (some even more interesting ones).

I've been in the library for weeks working on this paper and I feel like all of my work has just been invalidated. I have research on a kind of tangential topic (the difference in agriculture techniques between Aztec botanical gardens and their farms) but I don't know if I can fit it in. I've let my professor know of my problem, hopefully granting me a small extension.

When a historian runs into a problem like this, what is the solution? Where can I start over from?

I'm in Athens, in awe of the ruins and while I understand why one would want to keep the citadel like Acropolis high on the hill, I'm still puzzled about nearby districts like Plaka or Monastiraki. Like, who in their sane mind would think it's a good idea, the surface is so steep there, the sheer effort to build a house, provide it with water, food, sewage, etc. must be enormous at those times. As with most of the things in live, there must be some sort of economical rationale behind that I'm not aware of. High ground in case of attack? Idk.

​

P.S. Aren't you afraid that cats will seize the power of this city one day? Was laughing my ass off, there are like 10 of these chonky behemoths per square meter, lol.

I hope this post is allowed, I understand it's not a direct question about history... but it IS a question that only historians can answer.

Would just love to hear some stories about why people have chosen certain fields of expertise over others. How your love of history or a particular period in time started etc.

I think it'll be a nice discussion, and a slight change from the usual "Did Genghis Khan REALLY reduce CO2 levels!?" etc.

Of course I realize that the sepoys of the late 18th-early 19th centuries were soldiers in a private army of the East India Company. But the EIC seems to have made use of "regular" British units on occasion, and at the height of Napoleon's conquests and with fears of a cross-Channel invasion, it seems (at least to a novice like me) like a reasonable thought to do the reverse and bring in some of this large, well-trained army for defense. It's certainly something that the British Empire was willing to do in the World Wars, when India was directly governed by the British.

Was this ever considered? Or was it completely impractical for the logistics of the time? Or was there a fear of hosting basically a private army on or close to British soil that outweighed fears of Napoleon?

I have a vague, „intuitive“, if you will, impression why this might be the case, but am curious to hear and learn about it from historians themselves.

In my (brutally oversimplified) view, these people are rightists long prior to doing any historical research—their desire to do such research generally derives from those same traits which had „predisposed“ them for (far) right politics at the outset. What do historians think about it?

I would like to start this off by saying that I am under the impression that the Holodomor absolutely happened. This Saturday was Canada’s Holodomor Remembrance Day. A good portion of people on social media came out stating that it was a hoax and was strictly “western propaganda” to make communism look evil.

What evidence do we have that it actually happened?

Growing up, I learned that the current calendar we use has catholic origins and I found it interesting and somewhat ironic that we count the years from the birth of christ, whose existence is atmost debatable(?), especially when talking about history. Is it just for commodity at this point or are there more historical events that define A.D. 1?

Why Bach instead of one of his contemporaries?

The early-WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons, such as anti-tank grenades and anti-tank rifles, were quite ineffective, particularly those used by the Germans.

But the late-WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons, such as the Bazooka, Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck, seem so much better:

• able to fire from range/a much greater range
• vastly improved armour penetration, eclipsing that of many tanks (Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck)
• were reusable (Bazooka and Panzerschreck)

But how effective were they really?

The Bazooka had actually quite a low armour penetration value, around 70-100mm, but it was the first of its kind (that was mass produced and employed anyway) and also reusable. The Panzerschreck on the other hand had around 200mm, which is crazy high considering the most common anti-tank gun/tank cannon for the Germans around that time was the 75mm and had less penetration (though of course also able to fire at much greater distances). The Panzerfaust was not reusable, but also had extremely good penetration.

Also, what's up with the Germans producing and using both the Panzerschreck and the Panzerfaust at the same time? That just complicates the supply chain. Why not go with just one? I understand that they (probably) developed both to explore two different approaches to this kind of weapon and see which one is better, but once they figured out which one is better, it should be better to just stick with one, no? So then the logical conclusion must be that they were either stupid, or that those two weapons filled two very different roles in German infantry anti-tank doctrine. So, which one is it? If its the former, then which one was better? The Panzerschreck or the Panzerfaust? And if its the latter, then how were they used differently doctrine-wise?

Speaking of reusable (Bazooka, Panzerschreck) vs. single-use (Panzerfaust) infantry anti-tank weapons: The main difference here seems to be fixed (short term) costs vs. variable (long term) costs. The reusable weapons would have a greater fixed cost, as the launcher is more difficult to manufacture, but the variable costs would be lower, as one could just have to keep supplying the already existing launchers with new ammunition. You just need to produce new ammunition, as well as replace any worn out or lost launchers, but you don't need to always replace the entire weapon. Meanwhile with the single use weapon you would need to always produce an entirely new launcher as well as ammunition to replenish the troops. Said launcher would overall be cheaper to produce than the reusable launcher, as the single-use launcher is simpler in its design, leading to lower fixed costs, but once you have to use the weapon more than once, the reusable launcher should be cheaper. The question then really comes down to how much of the costs are due to the launcher and how much due to the ammunition. If the ammunition makes up 90% of the cost anyway, then whether you are using a reusable or a single-use launcher won't make that much of a difference.

Lastly, why were the Russians, or any of the other major participants of the war that faced a lot of tanks for that matter (Japan, Italy, Britain) so behind in developing a similar kind of weapon? Was it simply not needed that much due to various factors? Did they lack the know-how and their allies were unwilling to share their technical expertise with them? But then the question is why they couldn't come up with their own design, while the Germans were able to quickly copy the Bazooka (as the Panzerschreck) and develop their own kind of weapon (the Panzerfaust).

EDIT: Forgot that the PIAT also existed!

Hi,
In Chapter 96 of Romance of the Three Kingdoms Jia Kui says to Cao Xiu, that he suspects Zhou Fang to be a traitor and a liar. That him cutting his own hair resembles the way Yao Li cut of his own arm to fool his target Qing Ling.
I have the german translation of the book and in the footnote it is written (which usually gives some bit of historical background info), that apparently Yao Li (~600BC) was a famous assassin, that killed his wife and cut off his own arm to fool and kill Qing Ling, the son of the prince of Lu. I'm very intrigued to learn the whole story.
How did he fool Qing Ling with that strategy? The wikipedia entry doesn't say anything else other than him killing his mother too and the linked article doesn't exist anymore.
Does anyone know the whole story or could give me a lead were I might find it?

Read on a post here recently that not all military looting us against the law so what exactly can be looted without breaking the law? I know you can't take personal items like watches and such

In one scene Micah uses the phrase "occupational hazard" which while it could have been strung together at any point since those two words have existed, is usually a phrase people use today in a way I am not sure would have existed in 1899.

So now I'm wondering if other things are historically accurate... Like when did automobiles first start appearing commonly on the roads throughout the US?

Or whatever else comes to mind. Just curious

I understand they were Important to the HRE and Austria. But why haven't they been invaded or joined Switzerland?