I remember learning in school that some of the most profitable cash crops early on in the southern colonies were tobacco, indigo, and rice. Tobacco and indigo seem to make sense, but why was rice, a food crop, so profitable that it required large plantations worked by slaves?

When reading about ancient history it always seems to me that fighting for ones ruler/god/country is the most glorious thing achievable. The great men were those that excelled in it. (Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon)
I realize that it was a messy hell for those involved, but it seems to me that the public perception of it had some level of 'glory'.
In the last century war seems to have lost that feature.
Is it because of industrialization and the sheer level of destruction? Or because we're more 'civilized', whatever that may mean.
Or am I just plain wrong in assuming that it once was glorious at all.

Let's say:

• A restaurant
• A grocery/retail shop/general purpose shop
• And a business that would require a lot of start-up money, like a movie theater

I'm sympathetic to the idea that a simple question often prompts a simple answer and doesn't require digging through stacks of books or combing through journals. But this is a sub for answers from historians, yes? Even if one doesn't have a formal credential in history (cards on the table, mine is in government) if one wants to answer a question on this sub one should have studied the topic in some fashion. If one can't think of a single even generally related source, just off hand, does one actually possess the background (independent or not) to contribute?

I think this would actually be helpful, because we could see which history books (popular history included) are reaching people. Interested amateurs especially.

From what I understand, the eagerness of the British to cave into Stalin's demands lay in fears of repercussions toward those British POWs who had been liberated by the Soviets.

However, beyond the obvious answers of Stalin's paranoia and a desire for revenge, what drove Stalin to take such a hard stance on the issue? Is any primary source material available to back it up or does this episode remain in the realms of speculation?

What I mean by this is that soldiers (most at least) nowadays and up to 2-3 centuries ago fought for their nation and were inspired by patriotism, whereas in the Middle Ages the concept of Nation-States didn't exist yet, thus making that reason not very likely. So what motivated them to fight? Was it gold? Was it loyalty to their lord? Or was it for another completely different reason?

In 1949 I joined the RAF expecting to fly. Having served a registered apprenticeship in a pharmacy (they always asked what you did in civvy street). I was told I had no option but to join the medical section. I know now that I could have objected, but I was green and obeyed. I did my basic training – square bashing, guard duty etc - which lasted about 6 weeks. I was then posted to RAF Henlow for lectures on anatomy and physiology. On completion I was ported to Uxbridge and was told I was going “Trooping” (SDL) (special duties list). I was unaware what this consisted of. It meant that together with an S/L Doctor, a W/E Officer commanding troops and other technical staff we were responsible for the health of all troops on the ship. I was told that I would be doing this for some time. I was on many ships and steamed to West-South and East Africa, Ceylon, Singapore, India, Australia, Egypt and Canada. Durban, South Africa was my base and we docked there on many occasions. One day we had just docked and were looking forward to Shore leave, we were then told that our duties were finished and we were going back to the UK. We went under canvas just outside Durban, a camp called Colobra. One morning we were not allowed off camp, we knew this meant we were moving out. Two days later we boarded the Empress of Canada which had been converted into a troop ship and was considered to be a test ship. Normally after about three days of travel the ship would join a convoy, but there was no convoy to join; we were steaming alone. No-one liked that, the Oceans were crawling with U-boats, and we were all very apprehensive. One of the duties everyone had to take part in was submarine watch, as were not passengers and everyone had to contribute. This was altogether tricky, especially at night, every wave or piece of drift wood looks like a protruding periscope. At midnight on April 13th 1942 I was not on submarine watch. I was asleep in my cabin with my comrades when there was a very violent explosion that shook the ship from stern to stern. We had been torpedoed. The lights all flickered and went out and there was a few seconds of intense ship-wide fear and darkness until the back-up kicked in and people regained the bearings. In all the confusion and panic I made my way to a lifeboat only to find that the davit mechanism was jammed and the sailors were unable to release it. By this time the ship was listing and the orders came down to abandon ship. I slid down the side of the ship, trying to avoid the barnacles (which would cut you to ribbons) and into the water. I kept my head down and swam away as quickly as possible knowing that I could be sucked down with the ship. As my head broke the surface off the water I could hear someone shouting “Come on mate, there’s a raft!”. I managed to hang on to the ropes until it was light, as all the boats were overcrowded. The submarine surfaced and the captain made his way to the conning tower, the ship had still not yet fully sunk. The captain gave us another 15 minutes to escape and then put another torpedo in the Empress of Canada and she was gone. During that night and the following day 392 lives were lost. Some through the explosions, some were trapped inside as the ship went down and could not get away but many were killed by sharks. Apparently a signal was sent out because in the afternoon a Catalina Flying Boat spotted us and passed on a message that help was on the way. The following morning a “Destroyer” Boreas picked us up and took us to the safety of Freetown W. Africa. Eventually we arrived back in the UK, at Grennock Scotland and came down the Clyde and docked at Liverpool. I was given 3 weeks leave and a week’s survivors leave. Sometime afterwards the invasion began and I was ported to Europe and went through France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and finished in Bonn, Germany. From there I was demobilised and went back into the pharmacy, before joining I.C.I (Imperial Chemical Companies).

Leeds had a lot of war industry including armouries but was largely ignored.

Family legend has it that Leeds was too far from occupied territory and given that nearby Harrogate was a potential evacuation point for the government, that seems plausible, but surely Liverpool was even further off.

It seems like supporters of the five other parties in Reichstag (who had collectively garnered 70% of the public vote) might be vehemently opposed to a political adversary assuming power and killing off their representatives. Yet we only seem to hear stories of Hitler's meteoric rise in popularity. Is there evidence to suggest that an appreciable amount of the German population were (at least, secretly) opposed to Hitler's fuerership?

What did they think of the Romans? Did they ever indicate trepidation or recognition of the rising power in the west?

My understanding is that archaeologists consider the Clovis culture to have begun about 13,000 years ago, and that it lasted for about a thousand years before splitting into more distinct culture groups.

This is based on the recovery of distinctive styles of spear points/arrowhead points as well as other tools, correct? Some questions about this:

1.) Is there more to the Clovis "culture" than these simple items?

2.) How much material do archaeologists normally need to find in a site before they can say "This is a distinctive cultural group"?

3.) Why do archaeologists say that the same culture persists within a group over a period of centuries based on a few technological items? If in 10,000 years all that we had left of us was our music playing devices, would archaeologists talk about the long lasting LP culture which saw a short decline as the 8-track, casette, and CD cultures followed each other. Then along came the mp3 culture which nearly wiped out all previous cultures, although a significant minority culture developed around the LP. Is this not a similar framework to how we describe the Clovis people?

4.) The Clovis people have been described as the oldest humans in the Americas. My understanding is that there are other sites in N. America which potentially have evidence showing older habitation, as well as sites in S. America. How firm is the evidence for the Clovis people being the oldest inhabitants in the Americas? Is it no longer a valid theory?

5.) When I was in high school (graduated mid 90s), the commonly accepted and taught theory for migration to the Americas was via the Bering Strait landbridge. My understanding is that this view is now challenged, with people suggesting that there were two migration periods. Is this theory controversial, and what evidence (other than pre-Clovis finds) is there to support this?

I'm learning about the middle passage right now and the terrible conditions the slaves were put in. I've tried googling it and have not found anything so I was wondering if someone could help me out.

Were they allowed to move at all? Where did they go to the bathroom? Some of the journeys took two years. If they were not allowed to move, wouldn't their muscles atrophy? The conditions seemed so horrific that I'm surprised only 15% died on the journey.

I know the famous laconic reply "If" that the Spartans replied with when Philip II sent his ultimatum. However, I don't know if any fighting actually occurred between them.

I have a hunch that we talk more about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because those deaths happened all at once, then left many people ill and poisoned the environment. But I'm wondering if the bombing campaigns in Germany, france, or great Britain actually killed more civilians.