You know the drill! Vote your favorite posts of the past month! Feel free to nominate ones you don't see here.

I have learned that Columbus had taken a group of tainos back to Spain but, what happened to those tainos?

My teacher said thousands of Americans became disheartened with America during the depression, and emigrated to the Soviet Union where there was work. If this is true who were these people? Were they ex Soviet nationals or people from a broad ethnic background?

Where there any rulers or other notable people who committed suicide? Do we have any record of it? Was suicide a taboo topic at the time and written out of correspondence, court proceedings, or church documents?

What is the historical/etymological background to it?

Non-american here, so when answering, assume I know very little about the political organisation in the US. I have a good knowledge of the general history of the country however.

It covered such a large area and can't have been hefty enough to stop a determined gang of men with ladders, and surely it can't have been solidly manned all the way across either?

I've been reading text for one of my history classes and it talks about how terribly the Indians were treated when the new settlers from Europe came over and how they basically just ravaged the land and brutally murdered everyone including women, children, and babies. It talks about raping, enslaving, starving, torturing, burning alive and all kinds of insane barbaric stuff that seems way more brutal than the Holocaust, though i'm not trying to discredit the atrocities of the Holocaust.

Or more broadly, can we see what we might identify as class differences among tomb occupants?

If you've spent enough time in Chicano circles (MEChA, etc.), you'll encounter a certain variety who call themselves "Xikanos" and "Mexikanos" and who often change their names from Spanish to Nahuatl, and so on. These folks will adamantly insist that the Aztecs didn't sacrifice anybody, that the Spanish made it all up, and that the wall murals depicting sacrifices are actually depicting open heart surgery, and so on.

They'll cite some German archeologist (can't recall the name) who claimed that the Spanish couldn't possibly have seen what they claimed to see from where they were situated on the shore of Lake Tenochtitlan.

Is there any merit to this claim? Was there ever any serious scholarly debate about it? Or is it just plain old denialism?

I'm not sure if I'm being clear here.

I've often heard that the central royal power prohibited duels because of various factors, one of them being the hefty cost for the military because of the losses in terms of (noble) commanders.

Would the same apply for non-nobles ? As for the timeframe, I'm thinking around the 16th century (mainly because the material I saw concerned the execution of a nobleman, the Count of Bouteville, for duelling in public), but if you have better answers for another timeframes, I'll be more than interested !

Thank you !

Without using the Russia/Alaska land bridge how did these species populate such distant and hard to reach land? And when.

I apologise in advance if this is the wrong subreddit but i figured as I am searching for historical documents this would be a good place. During the Cuban Missile Crisis my great-grandfather was in correspondence with the Kennedy Administration (sending his letters from Australia) after responding to an advert in a Russo-American paper (or possibly Russo-Australian paper, details on that are foggy) for people with insider knowledge of the workings of the USSR. A small number of letters were sent back and forth between him and the administration. Time has caused the copies on this end of the line to be lost, would there be anywhere to contact or search for copies on the American side?

I'm watching the 'World War II in Colour' documentary series, and something mentioned time and again is how terribly inaccurate allied bombing runs were. I specifically mean when they did try to be accurate, and not during the first use of 'Carpet Bombing', such as the 'Strategic Bombing' of ports, factories, etc. The one incident that in particular makes me ask was when 100 new B-29 Super Fortresses were sent to attack Nakajima Aircraft Factory, yet apparently only 49 bombs hit anywhere near the factory. How was it that allied bombers would so often so unreliably hit their mark? Assuming that each of the 100 bombers held at LEAST 10 bombs, having less than 50 hit their mark sounds incredibly unreliable.

?

Hi! /r/AskHistorians. I'm a half Turkish half British teenager and I was curious about the historiography, interpretations, publicity, denial and views on the Armenian Genocide.

I'm aware some countries have denied the genocide, and so it has sparked my curiosity as a history student, and due to my Turkish heritage I have decided to research the topic objectively by researching worldwide interpretations and perspectives on the genocide.

I've checked out my local libraries and have found a couple books on Armenia and the Ottoman empire and have found some relevant information.

Any historians, knowledge, books and sources I could utilise to further aid my research?

They might not have had any resources, but was this really a problem considering there was no outside threat? A civilisation like the Aboriginals would've been quickly conquered in Afro-Eurasia, but Australia was largely isolated. Australia has been entirely Aboriginal from the time it was first settled by humans until European colonisation. Resources or no, in their 40,000 year history, were there never any great conquerors who tried to form coalitions of tribes/states? Nobody ever declared himself a King and began to subjugate weaker tribes? It just seems so unlike most of human history.

Dan Carlin said in hardcore history 'blueprint for armageddon' that, when told by a friend who wished he could see what napoleon's curassiers would've actually looked like, Dan had replied that all he had to do was observe photos of many of the french cavalry in 1914. Dan explains that they had changed hardly at all in that period, still wearing the same plate armor, helmets and wielding (similar, probably not identical) swords.

I'm wondering if the sami people, at least up to a certain period in (relatively) recent history, were much in a similar vein to the ancient/early medieval norse. It may be impossible to know for sure, but the sami people that were unadjusted to modern civilization would've (I figure) had a primitive way of life.

I'm wondering how similar that primitive living could've been to the norse in terms of language, survival methods, general difficulties of living, and if there's archeological evidence to fuel any of this speculation of mine, or other citations?

Also, would the sami look like many of the ancient norse peoples? Or was scandinavia already too diverse in the early middle ages? When did the sami emerge as an identifiable ethnic grouping?

Watching Chinese and Korean period dramas like "Curse of the Golden Flower" and "The Admiral" made me ask this question.