While reading Stephen Ambrose’s Crazy Horse and Custer, the Crow scout White Man Runs Him’s name stands out as an insulting nickname - but was it? Wikipedia says he was also known as White Buffalo Who Turns Around, bugg the unclear when. Were Crow or other tribes given to re-naming people based on events or characteristics, and was this neutral, a joke, or an insult?

As in: people who worked in death camps (excluding forced labor, of course), rounded up people for the death camps, or knowingly played a part in the supply chain, bureaucracy or planning of the Holocaust.

Obv doesn’t have to be same book. Just looking for an up to date book on Boudicca, not a modern translation of Tacitus. Also, a book on the druids. Source material would be fine, but Romans being Romans, probably not accurate. Druidic culture, practices…though again, non written material culture, I’m sure it’s hard to find accurate reporting.

EDIT: Salt has been used for quite a long time, but during the Antiquity, the Middle-Age etc ... it was quite expensive, like a luxury. Nowadays, salt is really common and cheap, when did it became that way ? And how ?

Was watching ET and at one part Elliot is in biology while ET is getting hammered and watching tv, and the scene involves all the kids giving live frogs chloroform cotton balls and suffocating them or whatever before dissecting. Was that actually standard practice in public school biology in the 80s and earlier?

In my biology class in 2001 or 2002 or whenever they brought in already dead and preserved/bloodless refrigerated frogs. There was clearly an entire industry dedicated to providing dead and easy to dissect frog cadavers to public schools. Did that service not exist 40 years ago? They just brought in dozens of live frogs and had the kids passively kill them and watch them slowly die before dissecting their fresh bloody corpse like little Jeffrey Dahmers?

Also did they really do that when kids where 10 like Elliot was? That’s like elementary school age. Pretty sure we were all like 13-14 when we did it 20 years later.

Publicly she was known as the virgin queen but was this really true? I just cannot imagine someone living to 69 and never having any interest in sex.

I‘ve heared a lot said about the Soviet Union and how bad / great it was. I live in Germany, so my school education has been very negative in regard to Socialism in general and the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc in particular, but we rarely actually talked in detail about anything. Now, online I‘ve heared more diverse voices, with some not only highlighting successes, but even suggesting that it was a great place to live, actually.

I think it‘s safe to say that a lot of the (especially non-scientific) discourse on the topic is unsurprisingly incredibly biased. So, I‘ve decided I‘m done with that. I actually want to learn, in detail and from a reliable, scientific and unbiased (as much as it gets, at least) source about the political structure, economic organization, history and culture of the Soviet Union.

My goal is to use the information I gain to understand the successes and shortcomings of the Soviet Union so I‘m able to form a political opinion about Soviet-style socialism and to learn the lessons of what things could be useful and what should be avoided if one doesn‘t want to repeat the mistakes of the past.

I know that achieving this will take lots of time, but for now I‘d just like some beginner-literature with maybe an overview of the most important matters for a start.

I‘m very much a beginner to this topic, but I do have a roughly above-average historical knowledge of the 21st century. I‘m familiar with philosophy, political philosophy and leftist ideas (including Marx), but nothing from Lenin, Trotsky, Salin etc if that helps.

Thanks in advance!:)

As I'm listening through Andrew Roberts' Napoleon: A Life, I continue to see a recurring theme where capturing Imperial Eagles becomes a measure of defeat for Napoleon especially past 1812. For example,

Krasnoi in 1812:

The Russians claimed 13,000 killed, 26,500 captured, 133 guns and fifteen colours, standards and eagles taken, as well as Marshal Davout's baton

Leipzig in 1813:

The Allies captured 15,000 able-bodied Frenchmen, 21,000 wounded or sick, 325 guns,[4] 28 eagles, standards, or colours, and most of the French supply trains. Six French generals were killed, 12 wounded, and 36 captured including Lauriston and Reynier[4]

Waterloo in 1815:

The Greys captured the eagle of the 45th Ligne and overwhelmed Grenier's brigade. These would be the only two French eagles captured by the British during the battle.

Likewise from what I gleaned Napoleon remained tight-lipped on these losses while underreporting troop casualties. Were these Imperial Eagles prized by opposing forces for their rarity, monetary value, or as a psychological tool of conquest against Napoleon? If a psychological tool, do we have any evidence of leadership directing forces to concentrate on seizing these eagles above all else?

As I await the arrival of my first child I'm learning a lot about breast feeding and the challenges that many women face with it. Either they have a baby that's bad at latching or their supply never comes in adequately or any number of other issues come up that prevent feeding properly. How did society deal with this problem before the invention of other foods for babies? I can't imagine the baby was just left to die. What did a widowed dad do if his wife died in childbirth?

Azerbaijan is unique in that it's one of the few Middle Eastern countries that has friendly relations with Israel. Is this due to being a part of the Soviet Union which de emphasized religious beliefs, or because of economic relations?

Hi, doing a history paper on Anne of comnena and I was gathering resources. I was wondering which translation is the best or most accurate. Also any other resources would be greatly appreciated :) thanks in advanced!

Whereas previously armies depended a lot on warriors from the nobility, which trained hard for years with the sword and lance and wore heavy armour, now any common peasant could defeat said armour, training and sword with just two weeks of training and a well placed shot. This in turn shifted the power balance slowly in favour of the non-noble classes.

How true is that statement?

And did the crossbow have a similar effect?

I am interested about the history of the Norwegian City of Bergen during the Hanseatic League time. Anyone has a bibliography to shere (in English)?

Thank you!

As the title says because it seems rather strange that people were suddenly taking offense with each other and heading out into the field to just shoot one another to determine who the winner was. Like did some guy just propose it one day and everyone just went with it. Or was it a natural development from sword fighting and the like.

Honestly this is just an interesting concept that popped into my head while watching something that involved a duel. Because it just seems weird that everyone in high society would agree that the best way to deal with a problem is to walk 10-20 paces from it and then fire a very inaccurate gun at it.

After the Marathas had defeated the Mughals, why didn't they abolish the throne? They instead continued the throne even though the Mughal emperors were just Maratha puppets. They continued pledging allegiance and minting coins in the name of the Mughals? Why was this?

With regards to the fighting against the Japanese by both the Communists and Nationalists in China, who did most of the fighting and dying? I’ve read arguments that the Nationalists actually did most of the fighting and it took a heavy toll on the number of soldiers and morale once the Chinese Civil War had restarted-the CCP was in a better condition than the nationalists. On the other hand, there are claims that the Communists actually fought the Japanese on a greater scale than the Nationalists had, thus pinning more support behind the CCP once the Japanese surrender and the civil war resumed. I’m curious as to what generally historians agree or think on this topic. Thank you and have a great day.

I've heard that Yeltsin was languishing below 5% in the polls before, at a summit at Davos, Russian oligarchs agreed to do all they could to prop him up over frontrunner, communist Zyuganov. With their power behind him, Yeltsin climbed steadily and ultimately won the election. But was it all because of the increase in money and messaging thanks to oligarch power? Or were less fair, more foul means known to have been employed?