I read that the first winter at Plymouth colony was harsh. The entire country was open and they must have known that the weather gets warmer further south, right?

This may be a sort of meta question, as it was brought up recently in another thread--but it is none the less a historical question. I am interested in knowing more about the inaccuracies, shoddy history, and general problems with Stephen E. Ambrose.

Wikipedia goes over the "six known books" containing plagiarism, the non-existent Eisenhower interviews, and the problems with Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863–1869. Is there more?

Did people in the 1800s make any effort to try and reduce acne or cover it?

For class I'm writing a paper about the historiographical shift in respect to U. S. Grant's handling of the Civil War, but I'm having trouble finding sources from the 1950s/60s that view Grant negatively. Does anyone have any suggestions? I've tried biographies of Grant from the time period but they focus mainly on his presidency. I've also tried several biographies of Confederate generals and found some decent information there. I feel as though I'm not looking in the right places, though, and would appreciate some help.

I'm curious how popular executioners were, or unpopular. Did people hate them and what they stood for (the axe of the crown)?

I know they gave massive amounts of funding to Europe, but what was actually done with all of this money other than reconstruction? Is it generally analyzed as the sole reason for Europe's quick recovery?

The harsh reactions to Syrian/MENA migrants being shown all over the headlines makes me wonder how Western Europe (and even newly-freed Central Europe) reacted when floods of people were fleeing their homes the European geopolitical neighbourhood and seeking shelter and peace pretty much anywhere else.

My great great great grandfather was a member of the Chickasaw tribe (maybe, he was a freedman I believe so I'm not exactly sure if he was a member or not) and I know his enrollment card number and dawes roll number. I want to find out more about him and his wife and their parents and so on, so is there any other information I can gather from knowing these ID numbers?

EDIT: I just found a record from a newspaper and the subject is death so I believe it is his obituary. All I have is the article ID number, the Newspaper name, the date and the microfilm number but I can't seem to find the microfilm or anything like that on the web. What can I do?

How did the Sumerians create such large paintings? How did they reach the ceilings on the caves to paint?

It seems to me that the Illiad is written as a history to the same extent that The Histories was. I understand that the latter also contains references to divine activities as well as those of men. Obviously, myths and legends would have been told on the assumption that they were true. But would not all of these have been old stories even in those days? Was there a concept of people coming up with new stories that didn't relate to events in the world of men or the retelling old ones?

I'm in love with this holiday, but I've heard many conflicting stories about its origins and history. Some sources say it is based on Samhain, Catholic holy days, or was just a modern invention 20th century invention.

Also, how did activities like trick or treating, costumes, and horror become associated with Halloween?

Looking at a map, it's clear to any schoolchild that Italy looks like a boot. This is something that we say, at least in the English-speaking world. But how far back does this perception go? Detailed cartographic accuracy is something that goes back only 150 years or so, 200 at the most, but was this "boot-like" feature something that people noticed even on older, cruder maps?

I once learned in a cultural studies class that the film industry can trace its earliest origins to NYC. However, various parties (including organized crime) with a vested interest in the status quo effectively chased film producers out of the city and pursued them westward. Eventually the producers ended up in the relative backwater of Los Angeles where they could more or less conduct their business without being bothered.

Is this an accurate summary of what occurred? Can you elaborate on the details, such as who the key players were? And explain why, if California was the ultimate destination, did the film industry land in LA and not San Francisco? Thanks!

Wouldn't the lower classes of Chinese society dwarf those in power? From what I understand, the Red Guard was feared, but with millions struggling with famine and disillusionment with a regime, wouldn't many of those troops joined some kind of counter revolution against him?

[deleted]

It seems to me that most of the farming and plantations were located in the South. It seems to me that it would make much more sense for more American cities to develop in South where goods could much more easily be traded between the Caribbean, and the Americas. The brutal weather of the North seems another reason for cities to also not be set up there, however, instead we saw tons (most cities) built in the North.

Which would you recommend amongst all else.

From my limited understanding of ancient warfare, having a spearwall in the front was a tried and true tactic that not only excelled in repelling both mounted enemies and those on foot, but also in preserving the lives of one's own soldiers. Why did the Roman's decide to leave their heavy spear using Triarii in the back and give the men in the front swords? Then later, why did they seem to drop spears for melee purposes altogether?

EDIT: Thanks for the responses everyone. There's certainly been a lot more light shed on this issue than was previously for me, but I still don't have a very clear answer in my head.

1. "Romans adopted swords to combat the Samnites due to terrain making spear use unwieldy." As SofNascimento pointed out, Greece was pretty mountainous as well, yet they employed the phalanx to great effect. Also, why did the Romans stick to the sword strategy after the Samnites had been subjugated?

2. "Spears were too unwieldy, swords allowed for better maneuverability and efficacy when flanking." I can believe that the sword was better for that purpose, but I'm having trouble imagining a line of swords and a line of spears facing off and the swords ending up on the winning end. Why didn't they have the legionary equipped with a spear and give him a sword as a side arm for the occasion it becomes more practical than the spear? Or why not let auxiliary units worry about being more maneuverable and flanky panky while keeping the legionary in a safe, defensive, and solid spearwall?

3. "It wasn't just the sword, it was also the pilum." The effectiveness of the pilum is irrefutable, but then why not just use the spear AND the pilum? That way you could disrupt enemy lines, AND stay safe behind the length of the spear. I don't think the legionary's heavy armor and large shield allowed for him to make a mad charge at the enemy after unleashing a wave of pila anyway. Unless it did.(?)

4. "The pilum and other throwing weapons were also used as thrusting weapons." While being one of the more satisfying answers for me, I still find it a little dubious. Unfortunately I suppose there's no way of knowing for sure whether or not the pilum's construction allowed it to stand up to the abuse of using it as a thrusting weapon. I've frequently heard they were designed to break upon contact to disallow enemy usage. But even assuming they could be used reliably as a thrusting weapon, it still seems to me that a polearm designed to be used as a thrusting weapon to begin with would have been utilized if the need for thrusting weapons was seen.

5. "Though the image of the legionary with a gladius is the standard, they very likely used other weapons too." I also believe this to be very likely, but if this were so, if the gladius wielding legionary was the standard, that would mean that the gladius was the most frequently used. To my knowledge, the sword was almost always perceived and used as a sidearm. Even the katana was usually set aside in favor of the spear on the battlefield (could be wrong here too) in Japan, despite what the movies and ultimate-weapon-katana fanboys will tell you. If the Roman legions utilized a wide variety of weapons in different situations, I think it'd be safe to assume the spear would have been the most commonly used, as it was throughout the rest of the world.

6. "Rome's discipline and professionalism was truly its main weapon." I can believe that superior training could allow for effective use of the sword against the spear, but I also believe that superior training with the spear would beat superior training with the sword. With the exception of flanking maneuvers, I thought the spear would almost always come out on top, an issue that could be remedied with employment of swords as sidearms, or even units suitably armed defending the flanks for such occasions. Is there some advantage the sword held over the spear in a face-to-face engagement that I hadn't thought of?

Really, I'm just confused why the Roman's primary weapon became the sword, and how they managed to make it work for them. Polearms were used by pretty much every society as a primary battlefield weapon up until the invention and widespread usage of the firearm, and even then it was still technically used. The bayonet on a rifle could be loosely interpreted as a polearm of sorts. To my knowledge, Rome was the only society I can think of that broke this trend and got away with it.

The statement was the following, and it was directed at another person criticizing the suffragette's disregard for the safety of both horse and rider:

"It's amusing, yet simultaneously irritating, to watch an amateur discuss a historical event. Lesson 1: Never judge a person from the early 20th century through the luxury of your 21st century lens. Their thoughts and considerations were likely without the benefit of modern institutionalized educational concepts that are tossed around in this conversation like Davison's body under that horse. By the way, over 8 million horses and donkeys perished in Europe between 1914 and 1917 during WWI, and you benefit greatly from an imperialistic structure reinforced through that, and subsequent MAN-made wars. A lot of comparing apples-to-tubas here...animals such as horses, in 1919, were viewed largely a utilitarian beasts of burden. Hell, humans were sub-divided into evolutionary 'categories' to justify racial and sexual exploitation under patriarchal, socioeconomic structures and institutions. So to answer the question, was the 'collateral' damage justified? 17 million people died in a five-year span before that race in the hallowed-name of 'nationalism.' 10 million soldiers, and 7 million civilians. That's a fuck-load of "collateral" damage.Now, Mr. Horse Fan, with your late 20th, early 21st century informed 'notions' of animal rights (which didn't exist then), Davison's actions, did accelerate the primacy of the suffrage debate in Britain, and did influence their subsequent political enfranchisement several years later. So millions of women worldwide did benefit from that act. Is universal, and complete suffrage a reality? No, not yet, but by using your logic 'rochatter,' since it's not 'complete' it doesn't exist? Women don't vote? Women don't hold political office, own companies, don't make contributions across the board regarding education, medicine, and industry? And, incidentally, thousands of race horses are slaughtered across the globe yearly because of race-related injury, or because they simply "are of no value" to their owners. they don't ask to participate in any of this...and this industry still exists with a supposedly 'informed' public. How do you justify that with your ill-conceived, half-baked, uninformed theory of this event? Incidentally, here it is, 102 years later, and we're discussing (albeit to a lesser extent here) the issue of universal suffrage, so, it is, in effect, STILL functional activism! Pretty amazing...you kind of made my point for me. As for the jockey, they make an informed choice to benefit from dangerous exploitation, so I guess the chips DO fall where they may...".

I'm by no means an expert on the 19th or 20th centuries, but I get the impression that the person's views are shaped by his very strong opinions. What's your take?

I have a lot of time on my hands and an all-consuming thirst for knowledge. I've spent plenty of time on this subreddit lately, quenching myself on the FAQ, and what I have got from it is that I need to read even more about everything to even begin to understand how I and everyone else 'got here'. I was always interested in history, now I need MORE.

My field of interest is all of them, to some degree. I really wish that was an exaggeration -- I regularly stay up until five in the morning reading about film classifications or anything involving presidents because all of it is just so interesting. (Do I even need to mention that I'm autistic?) I have, however, managed to narrow myself down into some very broad categories that I take a particular interest in (most significant ones in bold):

• The African continent, including projections of its likely future (possibly more /r/asksocialscience material)
• Languages, their evolution, and spread (possibly also /r/linguistics material)
• 20th century American history, particularly the second half of the century
• 'Daily life' in...honestly, any daily life analysis is interesting, regardless of era
• Left-wing politics, especially in the Anglosphere

I have no formal academic background in anything historical. I do (as you may have noticed) read everything, and tend to surprise people with the topics I can keep up with. I'm a teenager in an alternative schooling arrangement without a job who lives somewhere amazingly unappealing to anyone below the age of forty, thus I have the time to read massive tomes if not always the motivation. I can't afford a lot of expensive books, but on the other hand my parents are pretty big on supporting my desire to know everything that has ever happened in the world in all of its history regardless of how possible it actually is for one person to know that. I like films too, but it's harder for me to get a real sense of feeding my knowledge from them.

The only thing I am explicitly not interested in is 'feminist' or 'queer' interpretations of history. I spent far too much time hanging around people who would espouse both at every possible opportunity some years back, and the sheer awfulness of those people has ruined those areas of academia for a long time in my eyes.

Thank you for reading this and possibly pointing me in some kind of direction, and I'm sorry my interests tend to be too broad to really tell people what I'm looking for!