When did the idea come to be for parents to give a name to their children? And not just let them be, without one?

I understand that the Zouave uniform was not a major uniform to begin with, but why did the style leave the US military completely after the war? Why, with the different service uniforms that existed during and after the period, did this colorful style leave by the start of the 20th century.

Recently heard a sex columnist say that polygamy was the norm in the U.S. Until the first/second feminist movement. Is this correct?

In 1492, what is now Mexico had a much larger population than what is now the United States, so I would presume that native Mexicans used significantly more advanced farming technologies, compared to their American counterparts. What technologies did Mesoamericans utilize for farming that their northern counterparts lacked?

Just curious, migration is a topic that interests me greatly and I'm wondering what the longest migration in human history was.

[deleted]

I find it hard to understand that the cultures of Middle and South America, being far more technologically advanced than those of the plains, disappeared within decades of Europeans arriving in their lands without ever attempting to use European weapons or horses, while the North American native cultures fought a retreating battle for centuries and adopted both firearms and horsemanship, the latter arguably to a degree that even exceeded that of the Europeans in skill and tactical importance.

There are a few reasons I can think of:

The geographical size of the plains vs the rather small mesoamerican land bridge might have bought the North American native cultures some time to adapt to European technology and culture that the cultures of the south did not have.

And/or the Spanish had a different approach to colonialization, in which the ruling class and dominant culture was replaced, but people's lives were never in themselves threatened by a population "replacement" as happened by the mass immigration and land occupation undertaken by the English (and later other European) settlers in North America. This can still be seen today in the demographical composition of these regions, where people of native descent make up a far greater portion of the population in Middle and South America, while they are a miniscule minority in North America. That way, the majority of natives in Latin America would never have had to contend directly with communities of European settlers, and thus would never be confronted with their weapons.

Are these explanations valid? Are there any others?

A few years ago at an old bookstore in Cape Cod I found an American history book titled Much in Little by C. Fletcher. It's brief, but also contains a "Miscellaneous Department" which contains "historical items, interesting and useful". The book was printed by Hollis and Gunn in 1857 in Boston. There's a name on the inside cover written in very old fashioned (or at least old fashioned looking) cursive. Is this worth anything, or is it just a common antique?

I know there is a book called "The Eastern Front 1914-1917", but I keep hearing it is showing its age and many of the "facts" are no longer facts. I am interested to know if there have been any more recent books released about the eastern front in WW1. (Russia, Austria-Hungary, Turks, Germany)

Many people I've spoken about this topic with seem to agree that the United States of America has suffered a great social decline in the past 50 years or so. This isn't about "glory days", we are genuinely intrigued as to where the sense of personal responsibility and community have gone to and what modern historical events have played part in this? Please help educate myself and my friends on what catalysts spurred our current social decline.

With the prevalence of firearms and artillery, it seems to me like dense formations of pikemen would be slaughtered on a battlefield in the late 1600's. My question is: How would a typical commander of the time deploy and utilize his pike infantry effectively?

We got to the question because he was first wondering why there weren't more blacks in Arizona, considering that cotton has historically been such a big industry here.

I sort of just stared blankly at him for that.

Here is what I remember from school :

1 - Productivity rose in Agriculture thanks to technological advance making less people needed in the countryside 2 - The rate of natural increase rose during the demographic transition 3- Productivity rose in Industry thanks to technological progress making more people needed in the cities.

SO people went from the countryside to the city to live way more difficult lives were the life expectancy was lower.

BUT it seems to me that there is a flaw in this reasoning : if productivity rose in agriculture why did people simply didn't stay in the countryside but to work less ?

I've heard many conflicting reasons. Things I've heard include:

-The speed at which Poland fell was too fast for any of its allies to react.

-France and Britain needed time to mobilize. (I find this to be problematic, since I doubt the war was a complete surprise.)

-They were uninterested in providing aid despite treaty obligations. (Although I think there was some reluctance to enter another war, I wouldn't be eager to blame them quite so much.)

Which of these reasons or others are true, and what had the greatest impact? Thanks for your responses.

Obviously there are a ton of trophy Lugers, Arisakas, etc. that veterans brought home, but what was involved in the process of bringing home a foreign weapon? I read some news article about a STG-44 that was saved from a gun buyback; and the officer in charge stated that you could send anything home, granted your CO said it was alright.

As a followup question, I've seen things American service weapons turn up in movies like Gran Torino (Korea, but relevant) and L.A. Noire, where its implied or stated they were brought/smuggled back by returning soldiers. Were personal weapons ever taken by their owners? I couldn't imagine a military would allow for some weapons to go unaccounted for, but was there a sort of "pay for your rifle" program or anything?

Thanks!

More specifically my question is how were African slaves acquired in Africa? Were they hunted/captured by European slave trading expeditions, or were they bought or traded in some fashion from other African tribes or individuals higher in the social hierarchy?

Thank you in advance for any insight!

I'd really like to get an idea of the cultural context of this. Did the armed forces actively recruit the underage, or did they just look the other way when the time came? Was it still technically illegal? Did families still find it honorable for their children to join even if they were committing fraud to do so?

(I asked a similar question on askreddit, but didn't get the type of responses I was looking for)

When you learn about things like perspective, vanishing points, and overall realism, books only show western, Renaissance examples.

Was the whole world really lagging behind us? Is it Eurocentric? Were there independent developments in the East?

Looking for some good sources on the history of WWII resistance, particularly what life was like being directly/indirectly involved with partisan groups and their operations in German occupied territory, in particular France but the USSR will do as well.

Any other sources/material are greatly appreciated.