I know this is a massively open ended unspecific question, I'm sorry. I'm terrible with history. I only want the basics. I'm watching 'the pacific' atm (I realise this is not a reliable representation of the war before you say) and it showed a scene of a world map with occupied nazi countrys and countries Japan had occupied and it made me realise this shit was all happening at the same time!

•who were Japan fighting against? (Aside from the US) •what were they trying to do? •did they have any allies? •how well did they do?

So this may be a pretty stupid question, but I was just playing a game with soviets, germans and USA and it occurred to me the allies always stuck to the pineapple style hand grenade - why is this? I did a quick google on 'ww2 allies stick grenade' and such but didn't come up with much.

In theory wouldn't the stick style give the ability to throw further and with practice even better accuracy?

Did military dictators who remained in the armed forces while in office still take physical fitness tests? Who would score them and what would happen if they failed? And what about the exceptionally elderly ones, like Francisco Franco who was in power into his 80s?

I've recently begun reading the Canterbury Tales and in the opening prologue, Chaucer notes that the Miller is a notorious and gleeful thief of his customers' "corn." I thought this seemed strange, since no one in medieval Europe would have seen a cob of corn in their lives.

A quick google search revealed that "Corn" in Old English referred to wheat or any staple cereal crop. So I'm wondering when and why the word stopped meaning "staple cereal crop" and started meaning "that starchy cereal that grows on stalks and tastes great eaten right off the cob with some butter and salt."

I understand documents/records but how is it determined that something from say 150 years ago, is even reliable or accurate? Do historians disagree on things, if so why?/what distinguishes these "historical facts" from those more widely accepted and taught in schools?

Take the example of Columbus, but feel free to cite others. How did it happen that through so much of history and up until recently, many facts about him were not known to the public? Also, what sort of things, aside from testimonies/potentially overly subjective accounts/agendas, lead us to decide that he was involved in and condoned terrible mistreatment of other people? How were these (and other) historical truths not established immediately upon the corresponding "accomplishments"/events, and what forces drove historians to eventually find the truth (or come closer to it), as it seems there is relatively little benefit/impact to modern agendas? In other words, if historians didn't strongly value the truth/care, who would, why would they, and should they?

What are its greatest inaccuracies? I did some research and all of the major events seem to happen in the right place at the right time, but what about some of the details (for example, Wikipedia says king Charles received his head injury on the way to a game of racquetball instead of after playing one)?

What are some good historical shows, both in terms of atmosphere and educational value? And do you have any advice on to what extent shows like this should be taken with a grain of salt?

I'm a neuroscience and math double major catching flak from my history buff friends to further educate myself, so any other tips on how to get started with history would be great!

The account that I've been told is that without the last minute arrival of troops from the East, formerly guarding the border with Japanese territory, Moscow would have likely fallen.

How accurate is this assessment?

The Swiss mercenaries, especially of the 14th and 15th centuries, have quite the reputation as being the sine qua non of any army utilizing hired "guns" in the period. What made them so highly sought after though? Were they really better than everyone else, was it some other quality, or did they just have a good PR Firm on the payroll?

The British empire was one of the largest (I believe it may have been the largest) empires in history. Yet, I have only ever heard of the British monarchs referred to as a King or Queen, never an Emperor or Empress. Why is this?

What's the changing of the guard like? The president is like a president of a company, except the rules and practices have been around for 250 years. How does the president elect learn the job, schedule, security practices, how to pick a cabinet, tips for making good decisions, the insider secrets and everything else?

Is there a manual? Does he shadow the incumbent for a week? Is there someone overseer or secretary passing down the wisdom?

How has all this developed since Washington figured it out on his own?

I'm interested in getting a better idea of how the French Revolution unfolded. Anyone have some recommendations of a book? I'd rather not slog through 10 volumes of something, though, so shorter is generally better.

I'm interested in a modern political interpretations of the events, and how they may have been fit into the context of enlightenment ideals, how the Revolution affected those and later revolutions, the development of left-right politics, and other philosophical type things. I'm also interested in the "anatomy of revolution" if you will - how do they get started? How do they unfold, and where do they go wrong?

I feel the French Revolution has a lot to teach on this kind of subject. Anyone have a solid book on the topic to recommend?

Given Cornelius Vanderbilt's murky history with William Walker (a Nashville native), why did the Commodore agree to donate the $1mil to have the University founded in Nashville? I understand his second wife was a confederate sympathizer, and that her cousin actually selected the site, but does this not seem strange to anyone else, especially since the Commodore seemed to hold grudges?

In some very odd discussions between one girl and my history professor, she has stated that Hitler did not necessarily know that the ethnic cleansing was happening at the beginning of WWII. My professor didn't shoot her down immediately, but I haven't been able to find any sources to back up that claim (not that I want to). So what do you guys say?

I am trying to determine how many black people in total have been hung until death throughout the entirety of US history.

Please feel free to contribute if you only know the total for a specific and location, but in that case please do specify which place and time to which you are referring.

I have already tried searching in the FAQ under 'Racism & Slavery' but found no such question posed.

Thank you historians!

Edit: I understand reported statistics will not be a complete view and so credible estimations of non-reported hangings/lynchings would be equally appreciated.

Today's Monday Methods topic ties-in with the Weekly Theme of "Disease, Illness, and Epidemics".

What sort of research methods do scholars bring to bear when studying historical incidence of disease?

Particularly, how do you tackle eras before the rise of modern medicine and medical diagnosis?

To choose an example, are written accounts of the symptoms of the Plague in Athens that killed Pericles distinctive enough to diagnose a particular strain? Or must scholars hope for some sort of surviving tissue sample with which to conduct DNA testing? Short of that, can diseases be diagnosed by examining the bones of the deceased?

To add an additional aspect to this question; how do scholars determine demographics of historical diseases? Are they heavily dependent on written records? Can scientific sampling techniques (osteology, DNA testing, others?) be brought to bear to give a more representative picture?

I remember I love heard someone say there has never been a matriarchal society in human history. Is this true? If not, what society was this?