I live in sweden where it is dark the majority of the day during the winter and today it was -20 degrees Celsius. It got me wondering how the people in Scandinavia could live during these circumstances. So I have a couple of questions:

1. Did they have enough clothing or was it common with frostbite?
2. How much work could they manage during the day?
3. If they couldn't work, what did they do to pass the time?
4. If they only could stay inside during the winter, how did they manage their physique?
5. Could they get any new supplies of food or did they only eat stored food since the harvest?

I'm having a hard time finding any good information on this subject: web searches for 'lifeboats' mostly seem to point to rescue boats rather than the kind used to escape from a sinking ship, which is what I am interested in.

What I would like to know is what kind of mass-produced lifeboats (or rafts, or whatever else they are classified as) were common on different kinds of ships during the twentieth century, when they were introduced and what date they stopped being used.

In particular, I would like to know when Carley Floats first came into service and when they stopped being produced.

Did the Civil War cause such a shortage that there was a demand for that much extra beef, or was it a change in diet, a new taste?

Chicago, Omaha and KC were all famous for their feed lots; was the cattle fattened there and then sent east to be slaughtered, or were carcasses shipped, and if so how did that work with out cooling cars? Or was it all canned in the midwest?

I've seen longhorns and even I can tell that their meat is very lean and tough; how did people cook that meat, was it all turned into some kind of pastrami or other deli meat? Or were even the tenderloins braised for long times? Or did people then grill steaks and just chew it longer?

What I mean is, was, say, the Enlightenment, only possible because of the Renaissance? And was the Renaissance only possible because of the Middle Ages? Is history just one big chain reaction, each period feeding off the last and expanding on, or rejecting, their ideas?

I read somewhere that the Renaissance in the 12th century was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, event that helped cause the Renaissance in the 15th century; I had always thought the fall of Constantinople was the event that set the wheels in motion.

So in many major civilizations that have utilized slaves one of the main things I've noticed is that they all pretty much have to deal with slave revolts at some time or another.

You don't really hear about this in the USA though even with them utilizing slave labour for a pretty good period of time.

Were their any major slave revolts in the USA? I've been able to find information on a few minor revolts and a number or revolts prior to the founding of the country but not information on major revolts in the USA after it's founding.

The quote is:

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

I didn't see this one in the FAQ, so I apologize if this is a duplicate question: Are there any theories as to reason for the records of extremely long lifespans (300-900+ years) of the people written about in Genesis?

• Was it a cultural thing, to exaggerate things like that to make your bloodline seem more impressive (i.e. an indication of your family being more favored by God)?
• Translation errors?
• Did the author actually believe that their ancestors lived that long?

I know it's tough to speculate on the exact motives of authors writing thousands of years ago, but I'm fairly ignorant in this department. Are there any known explanations for why they wrote like this?

It's this time of the year again, when many Europeans and Canadians have to deal with not-so-positive effects of limited sunlight during the day. In the modern days this of course has no effect on our daily activities die to prevalence of electricity, but it got me thinking - back when fire was the source of light, how did our ancestors manage activities that required natural sunlight?

What I'm essentially referring to are peoples that had to rely on hunting-gathering to survive (I mean, once you have crops you collect all you need in autumn and then survive through the winter). Supposing that successfully hunting/gathering enough food to last a family for a day could as well take many hours, how would native populations of Scandinavia/Siberia/Canada cope with the fact that in winter the sun would be out only for a very short time?

Would they manage to get what they need in 3-4 hours? Would they hunt through the night? If yes, how? With torches? Wouldn't that spook any potential prey? Or was there simply no permanent human habitation in such regions before the dawn of civilisation?

I attend Renaissance faires in costume, and I usually keep a little money in a cloth drawstring pouch in my belt. Sometimes it's a little difficult untieing the pouch from my belt. Is there a "right way" to do this? Thanks.

What are the main things he tried to achieve?

Any time period would be acceptable, but I'd prefer one from 1943 onwards.

Based on the "Wrath of Khans" podcast, one would be led to believe that the Mongols were completely unparalleled in combat and never lost a battle outside of their tribal feuding. The only mention of a loss comes at the end of the final podcast, a mere footnote about how an overwhelmingly large Mamluk force defeated an undermanned garrison army.

Now, I have no doubt that the Mongols were great warriors and that they were a league above most of their enemies at the time. But the historical skeptic in me couldn't help but raise an eyebrow at the claim that the largest conquest in human history did not face a single defeat. I don't want to discredit Dan Carlin, but I felt like some facts must have been omitted for the sake of the story.

So I'm curious, were the Mongols really so superior to all the other fighters of the time that they never lost a battle, anything from a rout to the loss of an entire force?

It appears that under Roman times, coins appeared to have fairly life like figures, you can see definite detail in the face. However, as time goes on, by the time the Empire becomes Byzantine, they're much lower quality and the facial features are highly distorted. Why is this?

As a followup question, why did Emperors stop getting marble busts of them done?