The captain of the Indianapolis seems to have been made a scapegoat not only by the Navy brass, but also (uniquely, it seems to me) by the families of the sailors. the man went through an infernal ordeal, and that was before he was hounded into suicide. His crew seem to have absolved him of any blame, but everyone else seem to have placed the blame squarely on his shoulders.

My question is..... Were captains of ships sunk in WW2 often treated like McVay by bereaved families? If not, why was he treated so harshly?

Why was McVay the only ship captain to be court martialed so?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

And why did their arrival not spread old world diseases with lethal effects like what happened later on when the Spanish got to America?

Recently I have noticed an high amount of attention towards Viking Explorers in North America around the year 1000.

The biological impact of various Euro groups in their first contacts with Indigenous Americans around 1500 and later is also well known. The explanation is considered to be a lack of natural immunity to diseases that had previous been contained to the Euro-Asian-African landmass, diseases that had been present on that landmass for thousands of years, diseases that had wreaked havoc on mankind long enough for some sort of natural immunity to develop.

Do we have any evidence the Vikings initiated any similar biological catastrophics when they first contacted America? Is there any scholarly discussion as to why various indigenous communities were still so sensitive to diseases like small pox and other infectious and lethal 'Old World' diseases, when they may have already encountered them a half century early?

Was 500 years not long enough to develop and significant immunity? Is Viking contact with indigenous groups exaggerated, or were the indigenous Americans groups the vikings encountered themselves isolated? What can of scholarly discussion existed on the subject?

Thank you so much in advance to any who may take the time to answer.

The standard description of Mercury/Hermes characterizes him as a messenger god, a divine mediator, and the patron of commerce. Yet the interpretatio romana equates Mercury with the chief god of the contemporary Germanii (presumably Odin) and Sabazios of the Phrygians (though he is also associated with Zeus). While I know this information is one-sided, being presented from the Roman perspective for their own purposes, what can we say about the character of the Roman Mercury or the Greek Hermes that facilitated this comparison between him to such central gods to these other peoples? Surely Mercury must have been a more profound god than a mere messenger.

During the first part of the Civil War, the Union had top commanders that did not aggressively engage the Southern armies. Lincoln was very disappointed in their performance and dismissed several commanders including McClellan.

As Commander-In-Chief, couldn't Lincoln have issued an order to McClellan such as "You will engage the enemy immediately and not disengage so long as you have either a single bullet to shoot or a single soldier to shoot it".

Was it within Lincoln's constitutional power to give such a direct order to a field commander? Did Lincoln not give such orders because it would be "unseemly" or "insulting" to do so? Did Lincoln not give such orders because he didn't want to have to take the blame for any resulting failure? Or did he actually give those orders and the commanders refused to obey them?

If Lincoln did give such an order and the commander refused to obey it - would the refusal be insubordination, or was it within the discretion of a commander to refuse an order that he felt was ill-advised?

I've been doing a significant amount of research on the Sengoku period of Japan, and an observation I've made is that different historians use different time frames for the Sengoku period. Historians seems to be in agreement that it started in 1467 with the Onin War. When it comes to when it 'ended' the responses are mixed across several authors whose work I've read as well as other public sources (e.g. historical websites) that I've consulted. For the 'ending date' I've seen:

1574 with the Siege of Nagashima

1590 with the Siege of Odawara

1600 with the Battle of Sekigahara

1603 with Tokugawa Ieyasu becomes shogun

1615 with the ending of the Osaka campaign

So I turn to the ask historians reddit for advice. Is there a consensus on when the Sengoku Period ended, or is this a topic that has debate within the Japanese history field? And out of curiosity, are there any sources that talk about the range of end dates for the Sengoku period?

Thanks in advance!

The Romans had a linguistic impact in areas that they conquered. Even today, languages that came from Latin, like Spanish and Italian, are mutually intelligible (or, at the very least, mutually legible). However, this doesn’t seem to be the case in Britannia, despite the fact that it was a part of the Roman Empire, too. Why is this? Is it because of the Anglo Saxons? If so, how prominent was Latin (vulgar or otherwise) before their arrival?

In some sources, it says they got Suriname in exchange for Manhattan in other sources I found it said Run island in Indonesia.

I was confused about which it was

North and Central American populations were devastated by diseases brought by 15th century Europeans.

Why didn't 11th century Vikings do the same? Were they less diseased in that time? Why?

I know that both countries originated from the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, and that during the chaos of the Napoleonic wars and the Latin American wars for independence what became Uruguay was annexed by Portugal. I also know that Uruguay later won its independence from Brazil. But after these historical events was there ever a sort of Argentine irredentist claim that argued that Uruguay was part of a larger Argentina, based on similar culture and shared history. If so, were there any actions taken to realise it?

It just seems like an odd thing to do. Was this a known intimidation tactic among the Norsemen? And can we guess at why the natives were so freaked out by this?

I just watched a documentary on it by a historian called Tariq Nasneed but it sounded kinda... made up?

I googled but the evidence is kinda... thin

What were Hitler’s plans after a hypothetical completion of Generalplan Ost and the Holocaust, once Germans began settling the conquered territories of the USSR, the native population of which the Nazis tried to exterminate? What was he planning on telling the future German settlers if they started asking what had happened to the previous inhabitants, including the Jewish people on those territories?

From my understanding Australia practised the removal of native children up to the 1960s, considering that forcibly transferring children of the group to another group is specifically stated as a act of genocide. Why is this not considered an act of genocide? I understand that with regards to genocide, it is often about intention, but I can't quite fathom a reason for removing children from a certain group of people other than to attempt to elimate them as a people.

Are there any historical examples of Imperial Roman soldiers being reassigned to a different legion? What reasons or circumstances could have resulted in this occurring?

I've been reading a bit about ancient to medieval maps lately. And they're very interesting, and some are surprisingly accurate (Anglo-Saxon mappa mundi, especially it's outline of Scotland) but I've struggled to find any information on how they were made.

How was the information gathered, accurate portraits of coastlines, and no accurate method of time keeping. I'm just wondering what information is available on how these ancient cartographers carried out such accurate work, some even have early attempts at lat and long that is at least to consistent scale across the map. I'd love to find some more practical information for how these maps were made.

Specifically I feel like the stress and food restrictions of the Agoge training period during puberty would be enough to stunt the growth of the teenagers going through it. Would this have made them on average shorter than hoplites from other Greek city-states? Is there any primary source material on the topic or am I leaping to a conclusion here?

I’m doing a research paper on debt as a motivating force for the “conquest” of “Latin America” and need help finding sources that examine the institutions and policies that kept track of and enforced individuals who were indebted to the crown. Where should I be looking to find sources that discuss the tracking of debts.

I’m still not 100% on this topic. I’m interested in intellectual histories. The Colonial period in Latin America is so broad I’m not sure where to focus my research. Any help with some sources that touch on the intellectual history of the region and time period would be very much appreciated.

I'm under the impression that chestnuts weren't just a snack, but a staple for part of the year. When the chestnut trees died, did people starve? How integral were these trees in the economy/diet? Was it a big deal when they vanished?

I'm not sure what the correct term is for what I am looking for. I would like original text and a translation of ancient documents, specifically I am looking for ancient Greek works like the Illiad and Criteas. I am just a hobbyist with some it he's to scratch. Is there a name for resources like this?

I checked the sub FAQs and could see any answering this. Thanks.