Or did the state give them the material?

I remember that the wealthy ones could go to better units because of the equipment they had, but I don't have any source for it.

From Collins' History of Kentucky, in the annal section for 1751. It's discussing English relations with the Shawnee on the Ohio:

Wednesday, March 13 - Gist meets two men belonging to Robert Smith, from whom he obtained a jaw tooth, over 4 lbs. weight, which, with other teeth, and several rib bones, 11 feet long, and a skull bone 6 feet across the forehead, and several teeth which he called horns, over 5 feet long, and as much as a man could carry.

Is this a reference to mammoth bones? Or to a fossil? Or is there some other megafauna that I'm missing?

As a follow up, would the English explorers have believed that this creature was still extant, with the bones as evidence?

Been doing some reading and see that Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves. If not for slavery, why did the south continue to secede?

Specifically, I am referring to destruction of ancient structures, artworks, sculptures, temples, buildings and so forth. As a non-specialist, the two eras seem to have a lot in common. Did both periods of destruction lead to a similar volume of destruction of priceless artifacts, or did one period cause more loss than the other? What are some further examples of such cultural destruction in the last 100 years? How do they compare? Any suggestions or ideas will be greatly appreciated, thanks.

Listening to Dan Carlin's Hard Core History and reading a few other sources on the Eastern Front I learned that in the later stages of WWII the Soviet Government was scraping the bottom of the barrel of able soldiers and emptied more than few prisons to boost their manpower. Once the war was over how did they deal with these convict-soldiers who had been given training and many of whom now had combat experience and possibly a taste for blood after the sacking of East Germany. Did they cause significant trouble for post-war Russia? Did they receive pardons in exchange for service?

Even with barrel rifling and the minie ball, I feel like a trained archer or crossbowman would be more effective in combat. Was the loudness of rifles effective in instilling fear?

Or in other words, what would these countries (Sub-sahara Africa, India, certain South America/Caribbean countries) look like if Europeans never colonized? Would they be happily living within the means that their area can provide them? Would they be over populated and in need of aid like they are now?

There seems to be a running narrative in Russia about the betrayal by the West. I've been looking around for information on this, as Putin has made statements about the broken promises of the West with regards to NATO enlargement. The NATO website has some good information, but they obviously have a stake in this issue. So did NATO leaders ever make explicit (or heavily implied) promises not to expand to former Warsaw pact members?

I realize this may butt up against the 20 year rule- but I'm mostly asking about the behavior of Western leaders in the time before the big NATO expansions in 1999 and 2004.

I'm trying to create a basic comparison guide on the tanks of WW2 I have managed to gather some info on British tanks and put together a small presentation. Any correction and/or addition to it is very welcomed. Thank you!

British Tanks

Moved to /r/TankPorn/wiki/ww2guidebritish

If you look at countries like Singapore, Thailand, or Malaysia, you will find large populations of Chinese people. When was there a mass exodus of Chinese or was it small amounts over time?

Today, 94-year-old Oskar Gröning was sentenced to 4 years in prison for complicity in murder in 300.000 cases.

One of the main arguments against such a trial is the apparent fact, that any objection a German soldier would have had against participating in such crimes would have been followed by a hard punishment. This is often articulated in posts like: "He should not be punished, because he had no choice."

Having googled a bit, I somehow get the feeling that this is a myth created in Germany in the 50s and 60s.

Is there any evidence of someone being punished for not participating in a war crime during the Third Reich?

Specifically for the wealthy in society; they would have done their business in a chamber pot, but what then? Did they use newspaper, rags, or just have streaky laundry? (odd question I know, but prompted by a scene in Master & Commander [the book, not movie] where a distinguished gentleman takes out a chamber pot in the drawing room in the middle of a group conversation, sits down for his business, then puts the chamber pot back in its cupboard with no mention of cleaning; was he sitting down to pee in order to be polite in front of guests or what?) Thanks!

Ok can you help me settle a debate with my mother? Here is the story - my mom was born in the US in '43, after her mother emigrated from what my grandmother always called Austria. But here's the catch - when my mom was 8ish (call it 1950) they went back to my grandmother's "Austrian" hometown, where my mother has vivid memories of having to hide from the RUSSIAN troops in town. I'm figuring that this means my mother was actually in Hungary? And perhaps this confusion is that while my grandmother is from Hungary (my theory) that given the recent (then) fall of the Austro-Hungarian empire my grandmother may have been confused about where the actual border was?

pls delete if in the faq

From the lowly peasant to the rich noblemen. For some odd reason this always is on my mind when I think about the Middle Ages.

Did they really need to threaten people for talking about a weather balloon?