In the middle of 19th century, before the German states adopted the Pickelhaube, what headgear do they wear? From post Napoleonic (1815+) period to 1860s what are the headgear of the German states?

I’m looking into buying a block of marble and attempting to make a legitimate classical sculpture spoof. I’ve more on less settled on doing a female form and have been spending a good amount of time looking at classical and renaissance and modern statues for ideas and references and whatever. One thing I’ve always wondered about since visiting Rome as a teenager, and have been thinking about a lot recently, is what exactly caused the almost uniform decision across time and cultures to basically never attempt to carve female genitalia and just always give them the ol smooth Barbie crotch?

Did any Greek or Roman artists whose work survived ever experiment with actually carving a vagina and/or female pubic hair like they all did with penises, or was that just entirely off limits? Could there have been other, more lewd and anatomically correct statues that weren’t as valuable or well preserved in important places or were later destroyed by zealots or looters and are just lost to history? Is it possible that some of the Greek statues may have originally been more realistic and had been later carved down to Barbie form later?

Even in the Renaissance, would a nude sculpture of a woman with pubic hair or evidence of a vagina have been a scandal? Would the patrons just reject it and make them sand it down?

It had been so many centuries since the Celts arrived in Britain that I assume they Britons themselves would not have known about the relationship. But the two groups certainly may have shared many traits that were evident to outsiders such the Romans.

Disclaimer: this is related to "homework" so please refrain from answering the underlying question, answering that one is my job, I just need a bit of help.

When the EIC starts its private military they end up deploying some of their sepoy regiments (native infantry) to foreign conflicts, mostly British imperial wars. I hope to compare this pattern of Indian troops deployed to foreign territories to the prevalence of such "deployments" prior to company rule.

So as far as I can tell Indian troops may fight abroad for three reasons, 1. an Indian state is invading a foreign territory; an Indian state mobilises its forces to aid a foreign ally; OR 3.an Indian mercenary company gets hired to fight in a conflict outside of India.

From what I can tell the first case rarely comes up, there is the occasional foray into Afghanistan but that's about it.

The second and third especially is what I suspect I need to establish.

The problem is that given how interconnected India has always been to surrounding regions through trade, an Indian mercenary company might well have participated in basically any conflict in most of the eastern hemisphere which makes it a bit hard to delimit where to look for sources that mention of Indian troops outside of India.

So here is the question: How should I go about searching for sources attesting the participation of Indian troops in foreign conflicts without having to meticulously hunt down literally every primary source, no matter how fragmentary, related to any military engagement in the area in question (basically the Middle East, Indonesia, South-East Asia, East Africa, and presumably China- as well as possibly even parts of Central Asia)? I am sort of hoping to get refered to a book that conveniently concerns Indians fighting outside of India, I'd still have to do a lot of work but it at least would be much simpler.

In Timothy Snyders Bloodlands, I read that the soviet government pushed the polish people, that had inhabited the region of current western Ukraine before WWII out and settled the land with Ukranians.

However, it is not clear to me, how exactly this happened.

Snyder vaguely explains that the communist parties signed deals to exchange ethnically Polish and Ukrainian people from both sides of the borders, and that 780.000 poles were transported back to Poland that way.

He also writes that the remaining poles were somehow coerced to go back to Poland, but it is not clear what that means.

Did the red army come in and clear out all the poles that didn't want to leave their land, including those living hidden in the woods somewhere as partisans in one concentrated effort? Were they arrested by the police on a case by case basis? Was it illegal for them to stay in the Ukraine at all, or did some pretext have to be found, to send them away?

I know that generally speaking, the polish didn't want to live under the soviet Ukrainian regime, and most of them would prefer to leave the country anyways. Being the Ukrainians neighbors, they must have had at least some Idea of how the Ukrainians were starved, and they also must have been aware that Moscow was really controlling the Ukrainian government. But there are always those who don't want to give in, right?

Would it be unthinkable that a Polish patriot, living in now Ukraine, would speculate that the Ukranian government, hated by many of it's own citizens, might be unstable enough, so Poland could maybe get at least part of it's territory back? After all, after WWI, when Poland was reestablished, this also happened in phases. I also wonder weather those poles were optimistic, because they had their country back and saw this as proof that the Moscow Soviets were not all powerful, or weather they were aware that their new polish government was really a soviet puppet government and they saw themselves subjugated by the soviets.

​

Bonus question:

When Ukraine settled their new territory, was it a wild-west scenario, where settlers coming from other parts of the Ukraine could more or less choose where they wanted to settle, and what they wanted to take, or was this all orchestrated and organized from the top down?

​

Sorry I know these seem like really basic questions, but I am currently reading some polish history and I didn't want to go down another rabbit hole of Ukrainian history at the same time.

I would greatly appreciate any answers, especially if you have links to videos or podcast.

Why did the Philippines didn't change it's identity after having independence and sticked to what was given to them?

This small island chain in modern day Indonesia was one of the main contributors to the age of colonialism, this is where the Spanish and Portuguese explorers wanted to get. If I've understood it correctly they basically had a monopoly on the trade of some of the most sought after spices such as nutmeg and Maize and was the origin of a good portion of the Euroasian trade.

Given this I would imagine this would have been quite a rich society full of merchants from Java and China seeking to purchase spices. There must have been some rather lavish trading ports in the area?

Still, searching for it's history before the arrival of the Portuguese (this is what I'm after btw, I know Columbus was never in the area) I've found almost nothing. Given the commercial importance of these islands, surely we would know something of their society, economy, politics and culture.

So that's what I'm asking, what was they society, politics, and culture of the Malukus like in say the 1400s (or any time period pre-colonization you may know about).

Thank you!

Need resources (books, lectures, etc.) for the aforementioned conflicts for both sides. Namely, I need good, in-depth sources for the tactics, weapons, day-to-day life, unit structures, and otherwise. Focus is on the (1941-1942) jungle warfare between the Japanese and the British Empire during the Japanese Invasion of Burma, with a further focus on how they actually lived and fought in the jungles at the unit-level, day-to-day, and more long-term, and the logicists involved for them at the local-level (meaning, not merely a list of basic facts regarding the Invasion, but a deeper understanding of the entire conflict and all that was involved, in a jungle warfare/life context). Thank you.

The (oversimplified) public stereotype is that the Wehrmacht was extremely competent and professional, whereas in the USSR military innovation was hampered by Stalin's purges.

Yet in reading Prit Buttar's books on the Ukrainian campaigns of '42-3, I am struck by (according to him) how rigorously and systematically the Red Army analysed their performance and made improvements at every level after every major engagement. Yet the Wehrmacht doesn't seem to engage in nearly as much post-battle analysis.

Is this erroneous, due to a cultural difference between the two institutions, or was it because the Wehrmacht was so skilled it had little to improve upon (besides the unaddressable blunders of the Nazi administration in geopolitics, strategy and industry)?

In 1945 and 1946, there were two criticality accidents at Los Alamos National Laboratory that resulted in scientists being exposed to massive, ultimately fatal levels of radiation.

Both accidents occurred because of a disregard for safety protocols and a cavalier attitude toward hazardous materials that would be considered shocking by modern standards. However, as far as I can tell, at the time of these accidents, there had never been a severe, acute case of human radiation poisoning.

How much was known about the effects of radiation poisoning on the body in 1945? Was the lack of caution when handling plutonium a result of ignorance about its effects, or simply bravado/carelessness on the part of individual scientists?

As a further question, how did these two accidents—and the massive number of radiation victims of the atomic bomb—inform and influence treatment of radiation poisoning?

Thank you for your time!

This is something I've been thinking about for a while as we've been discussing colonization in my classes. We don't typically see the westward expansion of the United States as colonizing, but as a territorial expansion, same with Germany pushing eastward in World War II. So are there specific guidelines to what is colonizing and what is territorial expansion? Especially since the occupation of the Phillipines by the US is sometimes seen as colonizing, but is that not just a further extension westwards? Is it only colonization if you need a boat to get there?

The quote is “Great Benin, where the king resides, is larger than Lisbon; all the streets run straight and as far as the eye can see. The houses are large, especially that of the king, which is richly decorated and has fine columns. The city is wealthy and industrious. It is so well governed that theft is unknown and the people live in such security that they have no doors to their houses.”

It seems like this quote is only available from dubious sources, so is there any evidence that this quote and/or captain are real?

In Britain every pub has a name like, 'The Lion' 'The Queen Victoria' 'The King George' 'The Queen Elizabeth' 'The Swan' and we see the same names over and over again.

Where did this tradition start?

I can think of a few random objects too, like, 'The Plough' or 'The Railway'.

Did countries other than the issuing nation actually view these privateers as anything other than outlaws?

How differently were they treated than your regular, unlicensed pirate?

I graduated from high school in 2005 and can remember being so confused about why the Bush administration would lie about WMDs, how would invading a country get the US oil and to what degree was finding Osama Bin Laden part of it. Even to today, it's difficult to figure out exactly what happened and what motivating factors were there.

I'm sure there's loads of partisan literature on the war, but I'd like to try to and avoid that as much as possible. I understand there's really no such thing as apolitical history, but I feel like enough time has passed that there's got to be some comprehensive text on events leading up to the war and the first few years.

What would you recommend I read?

So I hope I did not misunderstand what most sources meant when they say Inari Okami worship is personalized, but:

My take is that somewhen in the distance past (seemingly 5th-7th century AD?), there was an original deity Inari. As history and thus the need of their worshipper changed, the deity itself changed to incorporated those need.

Thus, again as my personal understand, the development of Inari worship have a marked difference from, for example, some Egyptian deity who start out as two distinct deities, but as their "function" become overlapped, got merged into one.

So my question is, if I understand correctly, how did we know that Inari "branch out" from an original deity, and not multiple distinct deities that "merged" into a single one called Inari, especially since to my knowledge, many facets of Inari ARE called by distinct names, and in the Fushimi shrine complex there ARE multiple kami being housed there?