Hello, historians! I had this question come up in my American 2 class, and thought I'd put it too you all for consideration. I just switched preps from World History (1 semester- time flies in that class), to AM 2, where I might actually have time to get into topics like this.
Some of my high school Juniors were asking how it is taught today in Russia, and also what sort of things Russian kids were taught about the West during the 50s, 60s, 70s. I can speak pretty well concerning Communist/Capitalist beliefs and State propaganda, but not about how thing were taught to kids growing up in Russia in the midst of the Cold War. Any info is appreciated, especially info or resources that can be used in class! Thanks everyone!

Something I noticed while watching Fury is how old all the soldiers are. Even if Brad Pitt and his tank buddies all joined as soon as the war started, they would only have been fighting for three or four years, but they're all pushing forty.

I've seen this in a lot of movies. Is it just because established Hollywood leads are all older? What percentage of front line soldiers were in their 30s or 40s in WWII?

I'm just generally interested in him and his effect in U.S. foreign policy, I'm looking for something that gives a general fair look into his life.

This line is pretty big with conspiracy theorists. I think it's poignant, and would like to know if it's an actual quote. Would anyone know?

Did "white" people actually hear the speech? Did they talk about it? Or was it just known among the activists until much later?

Non-american here. So I'm sorry if the question seems stupid to you!

I would like to know about gunpowder barrels that were carried on ships during the Early Modern period. I presume that the barrels would be sealed against the damp conditions expected during storms, but would the waterproofing have been sufficient for the contents to remain dry if the barrel fell overboard and floated in sea-water for a short period of time or would the powder immediately become unusable?

They wouldn't be recognised as Jews without their stars and that's what the stars are for - for soldiers to recognise Jews - right? So why couldn't they just not wear them out?

Through history so many countries have said that they are the ''heirs of the roman empire''. Have other countries said the same thing about other empires aswell but we (/me) have never heard about it, or was it just that the roman empire were more attractive somehow?

How many slaves relative to the total population that is. And did the relative number vary by a great amount over the centuries?

I have tried to find sources on this topics, but I've found nothing

I am guessing that Gautama was educated because he was born in a wealthy family. But what would his education look like? Could he read and write? What language (spoken and written) was used at that time?

How long have people been referring to the combined kingdoms of Castile and Aragon, etc. as Spain/España (or a derivative). I understand the Romans called the peninsula Hispania, that's not really what I mean, I'm not looking for an etymology. When did people stop referring to Aragon and Castile separately (or together as the combined kingdoms of Aragon and Castile) and start just saying Spain?

Hello guys, I am having a debate(discussion) tomorrow and I want some help. I already have a position and did my research so please dont flame me.

This is the question: Some historians have seen the Late Middle Ages as the most intensely pious period of Catholic belief, while others have identified it as the most dysfunctional, where the gap between the clergy and the laity was at its greatest. Based on what you have learned from the lectures and readings, which view is closer to the truth? In your response, be sure to address any counter-arguments.

My opinion is that they were intensely pious at the time. Due to the outbreak of the plague, and how little medicine helped the disease people looked toward the church more and focused on the realities of death. With death as a dominant presence it helped people become more religious. People confessed their sins more and started taking religious more seriously.

Also, purgatory became more commonly accepted so people would get together more often and say prayers for the dead. Many people during this time wanted to help people get to heaven so they participated in requiem masses. Even the wealthy decided to create chantries. Another thing that was prevalent was priests as mediators. The priests had authority to hear confession and grant absolution.

Other than the fact that some members of the church were corrupt what can someone else say to refute my argument? I can not find anything that suggests the gap with the clergy and laity are large.