I'm from Hungary and my grandfather was a senior engineer in a foundry and in a factory producing agricultural wehicles. My father told me that my grandfather had documents which were like plans to convert the production lines in 24 hours to make war supplies in case of a war breaks out. I've heard theories like this before (the most widespread is that the cigarette factories could make bullets) but I always considered them urban legends. Is there any truth about this? Could my grandfather have that kind of documents?

/u/b1uepenguin had an interesting answer but I was looking for more of an explanation on how the sugar cane was produced and why that activity was so dangerous. Not necessarily the downsides of being a slave in the Caribbean.

What do we know about early medieval charcoal burners? Does anyone have any reading suggestions to help me understand what the industry looked like, and how it changed, in the centuries following the breakup of the western Roman empire?

More generally, reading recomendations about charcoal burning in other times and places would also be welcome, if they would help me understand the lifestyle, material requirements, and technological practices involved.

Thanks!

I wish to learn a lot more about the period of the secession of the plebeians, the development of the plebeian council and the centuriate/soldier assembly. So far I've read a little on Wikipedia and listened to the 'History of Rome' podcast but now I'd like to find a book that goes in depth, preferably something relatively accessible as I'm obviously a layman.

I am also interested to know what the connection between the Soldier Assembly and the curia was, did the tribes hold more or less influence? And how come, from what I read on the wiki, that the soldiers assembly came to be where laws were passed and magistrates elected? What role did the senate then play?

Sorry if this is a very vague question. Also, I'm aware that historians nowadays don't actually use the concept of Feudalism anymore.

I'm currently writing some fantasy stories and it's made me realize: I'm not too hot on how artisans and merchants--people who were "above" peasants but below lords and the like--lived in Medieval Europe. I'm too used to the modern day Capitalist system.

In the Feudal system, you have peasants who are pretty much just farmers who live completely off the land owned by their lord (correct me if I'm wrong!) and the lords who owned the land. But what about the guys made and traded stuff? Were they considered peasants, just more wealthy than the average farmer? How did artisans sell and market their wares? Did the concept of a "business" or "company" even exist pre-Capitalism?

Fantasy has the classic tropes of the traveling merchant who wanders the land and sells in every town he stops in, and the craftsman who owns a shop and makes his whole living through selling weapons/armor/etc, but does this have any basis in reality?

As I read more about history, I find myself being unable to retain a lot of the information. I've been trying to put it into a context, but I'm finding it difficult. For example: I love to hear stories about my grandfather fishing with his grandfather, how they would have an "ice chest" because refrigerators were not invented yet, and how his mother would wash clothes in a tub outside because she didn't have a washing machine. Obviously, I understand these things but I can't picture it. Everyday life was so different just 50 years ago--how can I truly understand? My college has a rich history, and I toured the mansion on the grounds. I was in this house, but I couldn't understand how they lived. How did they cook? How did they bathe? What was everyday life like? How did Hitler iron his clothes? How did people cut their hair before scissors? How do I answer questions like these?

Along this same vein, I also find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that history, to me, was modern and new to those living it. When I look at a lamp from the early 1900's I think "wow, that's so cool! It's so old and different!" But to the people who had that lamp, it was just like the lamp I have in my room right now. I've approached history learning with this backwards-looking approach, as in it's hard for me to imagine things as they were at the time. I can only understand it as it is now: old. But I want to try to think of it the way people in that time period did: as everyday, normal life.

So, I guess my question is: how can I really understand how people lived in the past?

I've been thinking that, once virtual reality really takes off, historians could use this to "recreate" historical places and atmospheres. This would be such a great learning tool!! So my other question is: can you suggest good, interactive ways to learn about history?

edit: Thank you everyone for your in-depth, insightful, and helpful responses! I really appreciate the time and effort you guys took to answer my question. Thanks again!

Cursory reading on wikipedia suggest Charles Dickens have strained relationship with his sons and possibly be disappointed with them? And dare I say that, they remind him of his father and grandfather?

I'm taking a class on Ancient Rome and today we briefly talked about Caesar's conquering of Gaul. Their language and culture were nearly wiped off the face of the earth. I've found small snippets of their history but nothing substantial. Can you guys provide any more information?

Was a Spearing method or a Chopping method preferred for example?

And in extension, why didn't religion play as much of an important role as it did to Afghanistan in Cold War?

I'm reading "Food in history" by Reay Tannahill where she discusses three crop rotation being introduced in the reign of Charlemagne, but I remember reading that this was only introduced to the British isles from 1750.

Is this a misrepresentation or were there particular conditions in England that made three crop rotation impossible until so much later?

During the race for riches (when Spain and Portugal went to the Americas), why didn't they try to conquer Africa, the Middle East, or East Asia?

Is there any Israeli record of this? I went to Israel awhile ago and kept hearing about this being true, but I also kept hearing people deny that it happened all the time.

I mean, the people got into the Palestinian refugee camps somehow.

It is my understanding that executioners, at least in the Western world, were despised, detested and generally considered to be at the bottom of society. But why was this? Violence was, after all, perfectly acceptable, even lauded, in other circumstances (warfare, defence of ones honour). What made an executioner different from a soldier? An execution isn't a "fair fight", of course, but on the other hand those sentenced to death were criminals who had often committed heinous acts, and it doesn't seem like the mass of the people were opposed to the death penalty itself.

If anyone is able to shed some light on this to me somewhat puzzling question I would be most grateful.

I understand that France was an early ally of Israel after its creation in 1948, but helping it with developing nuclear weapons seems awfully risky in retrospect, contra simply helping to build up Israel's conventional military.

I'm thinking of risks like nuclear proliferation, France's geopolitical goals not always being aligned with Israel's, etc. Did France envision a world where every country would eventually develop nuclear weapons anyway, and it was just doing Israel a favour by helping it get them early on?

At that point I'd have guessed that the British could make the Germans bend to their every will, so why not take part of Germany and give it to the Jews? Was it easier to take part of the Middle East than part of Germany?

In the early modern period (preferably 17th century). I'm also curious about the opposite (protestant traveling in a catholic country).

Both were major undertakings for the Nazis. Why would they waste so many resources and personnel killing the Jews when they were fighting (and losing) a war? Wouldn't it have made more sense to focus on one thing at a time?

In what ways did they exercise power, both by legal authority and through custom/their own initiative? How did queenship help build the public's idea of a proper emperor? What do we know about relationships within the royal family?