I am re-listening to Dan Carlin's history of world war I and hearing how high the casualties were, but in the back of my mind i can't help button think about the Taiping Rebellion that seems to have had similar numbers of casualties without the means of mass slaughter that mad WWI so horrendous. How is this possible?

I'm not entirely sure how to word the question, and I don't even know if this is the right sub, so sorry if this is but what I'm trying to ask is if there a cultural shift or revolution that happened where we started to wear brighter clothes. I've been looking up every phrase I can think of on my school's library search engine but nothing seems to come up. If anyone could point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate that but if not no problem. Thanks a lot

Also if this is the wrong sub for this type of question, what sub do you think could answer it?

Edit: Also if it helps I've been using Gale Virtual Reference Library, I have access to a bunch of other online resources so if you think a different one would be more helpful, that would also be appreciated.

You see them so often in video games but they seem really ineffective compared to swords and axes.

Or did it not differ at all? I have in my mind that men never lined their eyes with kohl or anything like that, but that could just be Hollywood imposing its aesthetic on my history! Did men and women seek to highlight or minimize different facial features when they used cosmetics in the 18th century?

I have a friend that is black and was raised in the 1960s during the civil rights movements. She was taught that there was a civil war in Africa and the people who were sent to America were members of the royal family that had been captured and taken as prisoners and later sent to America as slaves. Is this true?

I know taifas in medieval Al-Andalus used to be something like petty kingdoms or principalities ruled usually by emirs. However, Taifa of Córdoba was considered to be a republic.

In other republics at the time (Venice, Genova or Ragusa), governmental bodies used to be consisted of members of noble houses, an aristocracy. How did they solve it in Córdoba? Because as far as I know, concept of nobility wasn't broadly recognised in Islamic cultures.

So, how did a ruling class in Taifa of Córdoba emerged?

Thanks for answers.

You here a lot about American, German and Russian tanks during WW2 but not a lot about British, although I know they had a lot in Africa. Were these tanks of poor performance or just rarely used in combat? Or was there history just ignored?(For lack of a better word)

I've been traveling through Sicily for a few weeks, and I've noticed a very interesting blend of architecture here. It seems like the area has changed hands many times--for example, the Duomo at Monreale has a beautiful interior representing several periods of art and architecture from the entire Mediterranean (even Islamic architecture). There are several volcanic regions, including one (Stromboli) that is continuously active and erupting. The flora and fauna are vastly different from mainland Italy as well. I'm curious to know what attitudes towards Sicily were in Roman times, either popular or of rulers.

This seems common in fiction. Did it actually occur much in real combat?

Or more generally, other complications or things you should avoid doing during pregnancy?

Also, when did people start to realize that what they did/ate during pregnancy affected the child?

Okay, so this question has been really bothering me for a while. One source says they are very different in their ideology tenets, while another says that nazism is just a branch of fascism. So which one is right? I don't even know what to believe anymore! You are my last resort, historians! Please answer with the most legitimate sources provided!

In the proclamation issued during the Easter Rising, it states "In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms."

What are the six times referred to here?

I've been doing quite a bit of reading about Watergate recently, but I've been unable to find a good, recent history of Watergate. I want something recent enough to have incorporated all (or at least much) of recent information, such as the identity of Deep Throat, subsequent releases of tapes, etc. I also want something that is more of a history: focused on studying and assembling a sense of what we know, rather than on revealing shocking new information. I don't have a graduate degree, but I did take some graduate classes, so I'm not afraid of things on the more scholarly than popular end of the spectrum. Ideally, however, it would be something that isn't drudge work even for dedicated buffs.

I was listening to the radio today and heard a quote that was attributed to Abraham Lincoln that said...

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.

If that quote was by Lincoln and is indeed true and not just talk to sound good, does that mean the Confederate states could have legally stated they were going to overthrow the government and take over as opposed to saying they were going to succeed thus acting illegally?