A couple of years ago, I tried not washing my hair with shampoos for several months, trying instead other methods of cleaning including daily brushing, vinegar and baking soda rinses, Castile soap, cleansing clays, and other techniques. I asked my grandmother and she didn't have much to add except that they only used rainwater. I find it hard to believe that our modern routines of toothbrushing, hair washing and body care bear no resemblance at all to personal hygiene prior to the 20th century -- do we have any vestiges of these practices left, or how did people stay relatively cleanish between baths? (After 6 months of no shampoo, the day I washed my hair again was glorious.)

Watching the Ken Burns documentary, I wondered if FDR was perpetually drunk. Did he really have cocktails for every meal during the WWII period?

I hope this is an appropriate question.

I'm trying to find locations/museums in the USA which have WW II German armor. I've been researching it and it appears that a few locations had armor but many have been in the process of moving it. Fort knox and fort lee are two which have armor but I'm unsure exactly what. I really want to see a tiger tank in person (I or II) and want to make a trip this summer to visit a location with one.

A lot of what I have found are post on forums which are a couple years old. I'm hoping to find some concert information and many of the websites to the museums don't list the specific tanks on the locations.

I'm hoping to see (if any are in the usa) -Tiger tank -elefant -strum tiger -panther

Thank you for any information!

So I'm going to NAIMUN (model UN meet in DC) and am acting as Kuwait in the SPECPOL. I have done some research but am looking for info or where to find it regarding one of my topics : Privatization of natural resources. Its hard to find much info on it as I kinda got a bad country power wise. If you dont know anything specifically related to that, or Kuwait has not acted or talked about naturalizing resources then anything you think I should know about the country you should share.

Great Britain currently houses a trio of three countries under the union (Wales, Scotland, England). The isle first had the Celts, then the Romans came but never conquered Caledonia (aka Scotland), and William the Conqueror only conquered England (Norman stuff in Wales, etc.). I am wondering if the isle could ever be considered fully conquered by a foreign power.

I am an inner city high school history teacher, and we are currently covering the three major 2nd Millennium Islamic Empires. I always like to give my kids visual aids, like flags.

The flags of both the Mughal Empire and the Safavid Dynasty feature a leftward facing lion in front of a sunburst on a green background. The resemblance is way to uncanny to be a coincidence. What gives?

So Constantinople fell in the 1450's, America was founded in the 1490's, and colonization began soon after. Although it wasn't exactly massive continent-wide settlements, Europeans did begin popping up in America, many fleeing persecution in Europe.

Did any Byzantines wind up there? They'd be quite old, but not within impossibility, and many claimed to still be Byzantines even after the fall of the Empire.

So did any 'Romans' end up in America?

During the time period it was established, it faced up against enemy musketeers, who obviously had a range advantage over the half-pikeman unit. So why did it work?

Including the Byzantines.

Did it differ between the kingdoms and dynasties?

Sorry if this does not belong in this sub, I wasn't sure where to post this and have always been wondering.

These days we tend to look at the past and surgeons performance of lobotomies with horror. But is this an accurate view? Or is it merely looking at a few shocking cases and generalising from that?

For example, I know psychiatric medicines weren't really around back then. So while today most people would be given drugs, in the past this wasn't an option. Even today, surgery is still performed in cases where other treatment doesn't work.

In the past, I believe it was often the case that those with serious mental issues would be hospitalised, and with little hope of treatment, would basically just be warehoused in institutions.

Surgery would enable these people to live in the regular world and ultimatley improve their quality of life.

So could lobotomies, while not good by today's standards, still have been the best available option at the time?

What I mean by this is that it seems that there's always an 'enemy' be it the reds, terrorists, japanese spies, etc. Is this a unique quality of the US or something that happens in all countries?

I assume the second is older than and informed the first but I'm not certain, and would like further information.

I watched WWII In Color and the Russians were pretty hard hitting on them, and if I remember correctly, they fought them for about two weeks after it ended? Correct me if I'm wrong. Point is, what interest did he have with them?

I can understand "New York" or "New England" as being named to inspire hope for the future and whatnot, but why are there so many other areas that outright use the same name such as Somerset Massachusetts, Portland Maine, and Bristol Massachusetts?

[deleted]

Primogeniture developed so that estates would not be divided indefinitely. If each child received an equal share, and then each of their children an equal share, eventually the shares would become too small to live off of.

But this situation would obviously apply to those with land and wealth. Similar reasoning wouldn't apply to those with little.

So among common folk, was male preference primogeniture still practiced? With the first born male inheriting all of whatever property their was?

So, out of personal interest, I'm wondering where to go to access some of the primary sources on classical music. E.g. letters from composers, or contemporary reviews. Especially if anything is accessible online.

I know that people like Pericles attempted to boost morale when honoring the fallen soldiers and would try to make the Athenians think positively and show their pride.

But what did they really think? Did they approve of the war or were they against it?

I've been studying Tudor and 16th century history and was under the impression that artwork (especially portraits) were based massively on symbolism. I noticed while at a gallery that a portrait of Philip II of Spain saw him holding a wooden baton or stick, while still equipped with a sword and dagger. I was wondering the significance of the stick or baton?

I know that modern Spanish has a plethora of Arabic loanwords, but it's still very much a Romance language.