I understand that we progressed from throwing spears to atlatl to archery, but why wasn’t the atlatl maintained? Especially in warfare? Like the Romans used javelins and archery, but think of how much damage they could’ve done if they’d paired archery with thrown spears meant to take down a mammoth? If hucking javelins by hand is deadly then an atlatl would be significantly more so. So why was that technology lost?

I ask because I am thinking of studying ancient history and history at Warwick, I'm worried I will seem silly because I don't spend most of my time reading up on historical things

I swear, I've encountered dozens of various "torture chambers" (often just rooms stuffed with devices for torture which were never actually used in said room) across many cities and countries in Europe, and they all meet similar criteria: imprecise dates, dead-eyed dummies, vivid descriptions of gruesome torture, and a collection of torture devices (ranging from the mundane, like the stocks, to the semi-mythical, such as an iron maiden).

When did this phenomenon emerge? Which groups are responsible for the proliferation of such attractions (I understand they must be popular with tourists). How much do these exhibitions misrepresent the reality of torture in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period?

So I'm curious as to see the reasons why Sub-Saharan Africa, like Nigeria,Ethiopia and the Congo gain such large christian populations? Did colonialism play a role or was it more "natural" in adoption?

What was King Peter’s role / feelings / public statements during the time after the assassination and prior to the declaration of war? Was he for the assassination? Did he call for an investigation? I have only read about Apis and Pasic, the monarch seems like a pretty important consideration too. Thank you

In her article "The Crisis in the Investiture Crisis Narrative" (2009), Maureen Miller claims that the famous incident at Canossa in 1077, when Emperor Henry IV had to beg for forgiveness from Pope Gregory VII, actually had nothing to do with investiture, because no ban on lay investiture was enacted until the following year. She puts this in frank terms: "we now know that no ban on investiture brought Henry and Gregory to Canossa." Given that the article is 12 years old, I'm wondering what the state of the field is now: how do modern historians understand the origins of the 'Investiture Controversy' and the role of the issue of lay investiture within it? If investiture didn't bring Henry to Canossa, what did?

I'm reading The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton and learned that, earlier in his life, Mussolini was a schoolteacher. My first thought was, Imagine being a former student of his as he ascends to dictatorship. That struck me as a bizarre experience to have. My second thought was, I wonder if there are accounts from folks who knew them before their respective rises, and if they had anything to say about their personalities and ways of life during that time.

In casual conversation, I brought up that one of the reasons for the Fertile Crescent’s cultural successes was maize. (Upon more reflection, the truth is probably closer to agriculture in general.) However, my initial comment was confidently responded to as being ill-informed and having many misconceptions.

The responses I received are as follows:

• The origin of maize is unknown.
• The success of early cultures was largely attributed to seafood.
• The domestication of corn in C. America is highly debated/Does not have enough caloric availability to be viable at 1 cob per stock.
• It is debatable whether the Mayans were capable of selective breeding.
• (Rhetorical question) “How does a cereal from across the ocean make it to Mexico?”

While some statements seemed like they could make sense, most of then baffled me. I quickly researched a few of them that made the least sense to me and couldn’t find much.

I’m looking for some evidence supported answers to some of these misunderstandings so I can try to understand what is correct and what us wrong. Any help or redirection to academic reads are highly appreciated!

I'm looking for the name of a specific Belgian WWII anti-tank obstacle or tank trap. I've been completely unable to find a name for it, or photos, or even other descriptions that match.

In 1988, I interviewed my grandfather, who was 78 at the time, tape recording his experiences in WWII escaping Belgium and joining the French Resistance. He was a mechanical engineer (who was in fact, still working as an independent contractor at the time I recorded him - still had all his wits about him) so I think his being mistaken - while not impossible, is unlikely. I'm also wondering if they were used for some OTHER purpose than as a tank trap?

So, hoping to find out what this thing is called, and if it's not a tank trap, then what was it?

Anyway, here is his description:

​

"Before the invasion of Belgium, we worked in manufacturing something the Belgians were very proud of, some sort of huge cylinders maybe diameter of 5-6 feet by 8 feet long. Heavy cylinders, made out of I forgot what, concrete and metal, and those cylinders were--many thousands of them--interconnected by very heavy chains, a link having two feet long.

Over the entirety of Belgium there were lines like this, and they were supposed to stop the German tanks because a tank will push the cylinder with the chains dragging, and it would behave like a like a spider web, and the tank would be entangled in it, and couldn’t get out.

Well it looked very attractive, but Belgium was neutral, and therefore didn’t keep anything secret. They showed it to everyone who wanted to see it. And the Germans knew sufficiently about it and built tanks which had cranes on them and those cranes lifted the cylinders and shook them like that, breaking the chains, and everything was completely useless.”

Finally - my apologies for the empty post last night - I had a glitch on my phone when posting, so I deleted it.

I mean slaves during the Antebellum period in the U.S.

Hello, I come here with a question I am unable to find the answer for. I know that German military was heavily opposed to the American use of shotguns during trench raids as they were heavily effective for clearing them out.
Given that Germany wasn't scared to use gases, zeppeline bombers and submarine warfare, did they tried to use shotguns of their own after their protest fell on deaf ears?