I was listening to a podcast earlier that talked a bit about wildfires and it got me to wondering, how did Native Americans deal with large forest fires? Did they have any means to fight large fires or did they just move away and wait for the fire to burn itself out? Did they take any precautions to minimize their fire risk like clearing away nearby trees from their dwellings? Were there any tribes that were wiped out by large fires? I'm very interested in learning more about the relationship between Native American tribes and large fires.

I tried to research this on my own but got kind of confused. My big question is did it involve any form of income tax at all?

I was reading in another thread here the other day about how Red Army soldiers had to forage and pillage their food on the road to Berlin, and I also remember reading about encircled German troops on the Western Front resorting to hunting wild animals to survive. Just how much damage was done to the ecosystem?

I've read that the depictions of Romans as having lots of orgies and the like was actually propaganda and actually they were a very conservative, especially about sex.

As far as i know the main duties of marines were to protect the ships officers from mutinies and engage the enemy with muskets and bayonets in close action.

I'm interested how sailors and marines were kept from fraternising with each other considering how cramped warships were at the time. Additionally, were marines ever expected to help the sailors in any tasks on board?

I guess the people here know the most about the Royal Navy but i'm interested about other navies as well.

In Italian, it's Colombo. In his writings he called himself Colom. In his (probable) native tongue of Ligurian, it's Corombo. In Spanish, his employer's language, it's Colón. In English, we Latinize it to Columbus. Why all the names, especially a weirdly Latinized one in English?

[deleted]

I read today that de Gaulle refused to allow Free French forces to participate in the Normandy landings, and I wonder why. I've never heard that he refused and supposed that the Free French just didn't have significant forces to contribute. What were de Gaulle's reasons for refusing what would have been a huge morale victory for France? Did he just not like the Allies' chances? Was he trying to preserve his forces from bloody battle?

So, I am only vaguely aware of the general narrative of events and a lot of it is clouded in political bias. So does anyone have books or articles (or anything else) that are good as a way of reaching a more in-depth understanding of the conflict, and obviously the narrative leading up to that.

Thanks.

In reading about Columbus, I've learned that there is debate as to whether he was truly of Spanish origin instead of Italian.

I'd always been taught that he was born in Genoa and was an Italian.

Is there any actual evidence to the contrary?

Like how did it become a thing? Surely it couldn't have been a game for fun (could it have?). Was it used to settle disputes? Or to "let fate decide" things? I am curious.

More specifically would the cavalry ever give a infantry or archer unit a "piggy" ride to gain the flank or cover ground quickly for any reason. Random thought but couldn't find anything on it.

My mother might know

Hope this is an acceptable post. I am looking for a quote from a figure of importance at the time who expressed their desire that Europe should avoid any such violence in the future, something which sums up the general feeling of waste at the end of the war.

Thanks in advance.

I just finished an incredible tour of Lisbon, Portugal, including tours of the areas where the processions for the Portuguese Inquisition went.

I understand that the Portuguese Inquisition was slightly later, and at the behest of a marriage between King Manuel and his Spanish wife, but the guide said some interesting things and I was hoping for some verification.

She said that the main impetus for the Inquisition in both Spain and Portugal was money. The Jews of the region had been granted certain lands which made them wealthy, and Manuel/Ferdinand and Isabella began to use their race as a pretext to jail them. Only very few of the jailed Jews (or New Christians) were actually killed. If they were, their families could no longer pay ransoms to free them. The ones that were freed, found their family members arrested shortly after.

So the deaths were really a way to keep credibility with the general population while keeping ransoms from Jews flowing freely.

Any truth to this idea?

Article 11 of the Articles of Confederation specifically says that Canada can join the US if it wants to. Was this mostly wishful thinking, or was there serious thought at the time that Canada wished to become a part of the US?

And I'm not aware of the US Constitution having any similar clauses. Is there any specific reason why it was included in the AoC but not in the Constitution? Was it kind of like the AoC was a draft (wrote it, implemented it, then realized what they should have done and did that with the Constitution)? Or did something change between the AoC and Constitution that made Canada less willing or less able to join the US? Considering the War of 1812, I'm assuming the US's desire to have Canada hadn't faded.

Are there any good books on May 1968 in France, particularly ones that tie the events to contemporary pop culture such as late New Wave cinema?