As far as I know, most clothing manufacturers tag their pants (for mens clothing, at least) with waist x length. Inseam is a fickle measurement given the differences between both front and back rises that differ between pants fits and styles.

As someone who's messed around in making their own pairs of jeans, the measurement of the outseam seems to be far more consistent for someone looking to keep the same length betweens pairs of pants; however, outseam being the accepted measurement just isn't the case. Is there any background behind this?

edit: Thanks for all of your great answers!

The popular image of a dude holding a big stick with a bunch of flaming oil-soaked rags on the end is in a ton of movies and the like. I can't imagine these were very practical; they would have burned for only a few minutes (if that).

Did people really often use these for light before the invention of gas lanterns? Can anyone speak on the subject of the development of convenient, portable sources of light?

along with Scandza, is there a scientific explanation for this? These are harshest places in the world to survive, it makes sense people would LEAVE but why were they there in the first place?

I was thinking perhaps those climates toughened them up to the point where they could just overrun the people already living in the places they migrated to? But I have no scientific explanation for this, it's hard to imagine that much of Europe was not already populated at those times though.

History undergrad here, I'm doing a project which includes creating an educational poster on a genocide of my choice. The time period of the module typically ranges from the Armenian Genocide until modern day but after reading "The perfect heresy" I've decided that I wanted to go a little outside the box and do a piece on the Cathars and the persecution they faced by the Catholic Church, also a bit of a Francophile so the topic interests me quite a bit more than the other genocides, even if it isn't as well documented.

As an additional question, are there any books that I can use as source material which address this view point?

Thanks in advance guys.

My mom strongly believes in the myth that Marco Polo brought Chinese noodles back to Italy and the Italians used that to make pasta.

I feel otherwise. Could the experts weight in? Thanks!

[deleted]

What happened to British soldiers when they were killed during the revolution? We're their remains shipped back to England?

Hi everyone, I was curious if you had any suggestions on books which I could read to learn more about the history of the world.

How was surgery conducted in ancient Rome? Were there nurses? What were sanitation conditions like? What was the equivalent of a Surgical light? What form of anesthesia would he be using? And would he also have doubled as a barber (I've read this in passing)

I don't know all that much about China but I want to, so if any of you experts on Asian history know of any good books on the subject it would be appreciated.

More specifically a book on a event such as a war, person, dynasty, etc. A book in the style of The Gothic War by Torsten Jacobsen (if any of you know it) is preferred but not necessary.

For example, reading Shakespeare you can tell it's from another time. Many of the words, and the general prose is different to the way English is spoken today. Same with Medieval and early Renaissance records, with the added "e"s to the end of words.

However, I heard that French spoken today is almost identical to the French spoken hundreds of years ago.

What happened to the English language? Why did whatever changed the way people spoke it not affect other languages to the same degree?

Egypt was sending troops to the North Yemen Civil War while the Six-Day War broke out. Is it possible to argue that half of their military busy fighting in Yemen lead to the utter defeat against Israel?

I posted this in /r/AskHistory but then I found this subreddit which has many more followers.

Does it hold any merit at all?

I hope I don't come off as rude, and I hope that I asked an answerable question, but does anyone here have any idea why Africa was so ravaged by Europeans during the Scramble For Africa? I'm not asking why Africans weren't able to mount many successful resistances until later (I know the answer), I'm asking why Europeans would act in such a manner that they did.

I should probably mention that this question could be alternatively titled "Why Was Colonization Brutal Everywhere?", but I'm wondering about Africa's situation first and foremost. It just doesn't make sense to me why Europeans would enter a continent, and then attempt to destroy populations of people as they did. I definately understand why they were there in the first place (first exploration, then money), but I just don't understand why it had to happen the way it did. King Leopold II's Congo seems especially unecessary; there were better ways to increase production other than cutting people's limbs off. In Namibia, entire populations were targeted and killed, but for what? To prevent uprising? But there are less brutal and savage ways of doing so, and even in the 1800s I'm sure they knew this. So why? Why did so many people have to die due to their methods? Why did they have to kill so many people over such material things?

I'm probably asking a question about human nature, and I definately don't think Europeans are the only people who could act like this, but I'm just confused all the while. Nothing I've researched adds up.

For example, in the German invasion of Russia during WW2, why didn't the invading German army conscript from local Russian civilians they conquered? I think the Mongols used this strategy. Why hasnt this strategy been implemented more?

In Maurice Druon's The Accursed Kings series, Philip the Fair and his sons always seem to have a small company of archer retainers on hand to do any of their dirty work when needed. Is this true? I never thought of France relying a great deal on archers.

I am wondering if people who initially opposed to the nazis on ideological grounds, changed their opinions as Hitler apparently sorted out the economic woes of the country and supported the cause of German nationalism as the drums of war approached in 1938-39. When it came to nationalism -were some people willing and wanting to defend Germany at any cost, despite not liking what the nazis stood for and were doing overall, because their pride in being German and more important not wanting the country to be invaded etc Did any communists or socialists or those to the left, who weren't killed or imprisoned in the early days, eventually complete service in the Wehrmacht or actually make their way into the Ss... As unlikely as that sounds am curious.

Did some people, out of fear of being found out, attempt to look like good nazis despite having been ideologically opposed in the early 30s, and became willing take part in the worst excesses of the nazis?

Lastly were their cases of children of parents who were vocally opposed to the Nazis, at least in the home sphere, who through Hitler Youth and the education system went on to become passionate Nazis, happy to do anything for the Fuhrer?

Whether justified or not, and whether they were too harsh or perfectly reasonable, we all know that Germany believed that Versaille imposed harsh punishment they didn't deserve. But I know nothing about what was levied by the Entente on the other Central powers.

Were they comparable to Germany's obligations under Versaille?

How well were they followed?

Did they result in similar internal backlash, or were they more accepted?