I know that he grew hemp, and might have smoked the flowers/buds due to his tooth pain? I have not been able to find a definitive answer to this question. If anyone could give some insight that would be great!

EDIT: Thanks for the quick replies. I am aware that hemp and marijuana are related but different. My wording was a little bit off. I guess a more proper question that could be asked is: Is it possible that George Washington also grew marijuana and smoked that?

Why did the Soviets want to help the Germans when they had just lost a war to them? Were the Soviets not resentful about the harshness of the Brest Litovsk treaty?

I discussed this once with an African and he mentioned railroads, english, etc. He belioeved that European arrival in Africa did more good than it did any harm

I was just looking for more examples or detail

so I've read and heard from a lot of different places that Justinians Corpus Juris Civilis is the framework how modern law operates. I also read in a book, that it was by far his most important accomplishment. But after reading excerpts of some modern translations it seems that he mostly managed to make homosexuality and swearing illegal.

Sorry if the question is dumb, but after tons of searching I can't find a good answer, to why it was so monumental.

I was just thinking about this.. Obviously removing modern slang and words, how far back could I go back in time and be able to be understood and engage with an English speaker then?

I specify verbally, because I know written language has changed quite a lot throughout history.

I've read plenty of quotes by Washington and others in support of this notion, but the actions of Washington seem impossibly hypocritical.

What were the reactions of other Libertines like Jefferson and Franklin at the time.

I hear a lot about how impressive English logistics were to create so many arrows in preparation for their campaigns, but not much about the Mongols. It seems like they would use a lot, all the materials would be in short supply (wood, metal, feathers), and their society would be hard pressed to pull off such massive production anyway. How did they keep up with production?

[deleted]

I'm currently reading through Great Britain and the Irish question by Paul Adelman and Robert Pearce, The Cause of Ireland by Liz Curtis, and Anglo-Irish Relations by Nick Pelling.

Each of these only goes into brief detail about the reasoning behind The Act of Union and the benefits for both nations.

Great Britain and the Irish question does go into slightly more detail, saying there were theorised benefits to the Irish economy, and claiming that strategic reasons were very important behind the decision, but are there any more in depth answers, or sources?

I've heard that the native ethnicity of a population isn't changed all that much if it's conquered by an invading force.

From what I remember, the Visigoths sacked Rome but I don't know if they also went raiding through Italy itself and mixed a bit with the native italians.

There is also the Vandals who might've had the same chance aswell.

The Ostrogoths inhabited Italy after it's fall but just how many actually settled? How big was the Ostrogothic tribe and was it enough to change the gene pool of the native population of Italy?

I've heard that Balesarus on his campaign depopulated the pennisula in his rage and commited mass genocide. Is this true?

I would think that after Rome's fall Italy was a wide open door and any Gauls and Germanics were able to inhabit Italy.

After the Ostrogoths were gone the Lombards moved in and inhabited but did they bring their entire tribe or was it simply warriors that took over? Would they have changed the gene pool enough that the ancient Italians are not the same as the ones we see today?

I've talked with a friend that lives in Italy and he's told me that people in southern Italy look Mediterranean while in the north they look more French. So that makes me think that even through time and conquest the native population ethnicity didn't change all that much.

Though when I look at pictures of ancient Roman statues and see what these people looked like they look different than modern italians to me. I'm not the best at pointing out facial features but they do seem like a different ethnicity.

Since we're on the subject, would this apply to Britain as well? Britain has been conquered and colonized by many different peoples. Would their native ethnicity have been changed as well?

I read his book Antiquity, and the other one about the Middle Ages. I liked reading it but I just want to know if it's good history or not. Apparently his books were best sellers.

The thing that got me asking is that he seems less than objective when portraying Germans, in no matter what era. He also puts a huge emphasis on the Jewish culture, and I was wondering if he gives it too much credit on the historical impact of Europe. It was cool to learn about Jewish history, but I'm curious as to how objective and factual his works are.

Wikipedia states that he had a "strained relationship" with other academics, but does not go into detail. So what's going on?

I personally feel the Mohawk is a badass hairstyle. I am just currently wondering what made it so popular throughout Native American history.

[deleted]

What I'm intereseted in knowing is : What type of image of his son did they carry to their grave? Was it the nobody who gave it a shot in politics? The sensible kid who wanted to paint? The political and spiritual leader of an entire people?

Lets give some examples;

• You live Moscow and want to go on holiday somewhere within the Soviet Union
• You live in East Germany and need to visit Moscow for a business trip
• You want to go on holiday to a western country (what were your options? If any?)

Everyday situations like that.

What would have to happen to allow you to do things like these? Im guessing they had some sort of North Korea-esque travel pass system?

I was just wondering if anyone thought it would happen, considering WWI was called "The war to end all wars" at the time. Also, if there are any examples, how accurate were the authors predictions?

I know there has been different fashions in beard and hair throughout history. But has there ever been fashionable before to shave the pubic hair, or is our generation making history as the first to shave our pubic hair?

I posted in r/suggestmeabook but it doesn't seem to be getting any attention. I have never read a historical non-fiction book before but I am very interested in European history, specifically Central Europe, the Habsburgs, other Royal Houses, etc. all pre-dating and leading up to WWI. Does anybody have any suggestions on good books to start with?

Edit: I don't know why I am getting downvoted, I am simply trying to educate myself and I thought the good people of r/AskHistorians would be eager to help.