The U.S. damaged the Japanese forces severely over the course of the war. My question is, at the end of the war, if Japan had decided to stick and invasion out, what kind of main land forces were left for the U.S.? Old men and children with mostly broken weapons like Germany near the end of WW2 or still very formidable? Thx commenteditsharesavehidedeletensfw

I'm just watching a documentary, and the presenter just said that life expectancy in London used to be 35 years in medieval times.

If I understood correctly, almost every time people say that you were supposed to die by age 30 or 40 in ancient times, this is based on the wrongly calculated life expectancy which was severely diminished by the extremely high probability of dieing when really young. I.e.: if you'd make it to e.g. 15 years old, you actually had a good shot of growing older than the number given by the stated life expectancy.

So, is there good data on the age an average citizen might expect to live in different time, given that this citizen has managed to turn 20 (or so) years?

Why did Zofia Kossak-Szczucka found a group to help Jews during the Nazi occupation of Poland when she herself was an antisemite? I'm not convinced that it was just to oppose the regime, as there were many other ways to do that.

Specifically what I am referring to is a comment I saw on askreddit some time ago. I would link it if I could find it but it was a highly upvoted comment saying something along the lines of (paraphrasing): "the protests by college students and 'hippies' actually hindered efforts to end the war. Politicians and regular citizens already wanted the war to end and all the hippies did was make the issues worse. The fact that such a niche counterculture supported a common sentiment only served to discredit it."

Is there any truth to this? Did they (hippies) have any measured impact one way or the other? Or were they just protesting something that was inevitably going to happen anyway?

When looking at statues and artwork of famous military leaders, the horse is often given one of three stances: all legs down if the rider survived, a raised leg if the rider was injured but victorious, and both front legs raised if the soldier fell in battle, or was defeated.

When did this artistic custom regarding the horse appear and become somewhat codified?

EDIT: I am basing my question largely from US 18th-19th century monuments, in particular the Revolutionary and Civil War.

I was curious. We always hear about how in Europe in WWI a huge percentage of the population died, but then in WWII an even bigger part did. How did Europe manage to repopulate so quickly in 20 years, especially since the birthrate had slowed by this time?

Commodore George Dewey was sent to the Philippines prior to the USS Maine explosion or the Declaration of War. How would he know to immediately attack the Spanish if the only communication he had with the U.S. was through other boats which took much time to communicate.

If the information I have is incorrect or lacking in parts please correct me

Edit: Okay, thank you. This makes much more sense than the summery I read.

The city has only one major franchise sports team — The Spurs.

It has a large airport that has never been a major hub for any airline.

It also has a nearly nonexistent public transit system except for busses. It is a major Amtrak station but the station is small and old and often requires very long layovers. (say, 8 hours)

Meanwhile the two larger cities in Texas turned into huge population centers and major international airport hubs (two airports apiece) with many professional sports teams and all the rest.

And the Capital City Austin might surpass San Antonio someday or simply merge into it.

I know there are many military bases in the San Antonio area. Have they hindered its growth in the modern era? (since WW2?)

Wikipedia states: "On 17 September 1394, Charles VI suddenly published an ordinance in which he declared, in substance, that for a long time he had been taking note of the many complaints provoked by the excesses and misdemeanors which the Jews committed against Christians; and that the prosecutors, having made several investigations, had discovered many violations by the Jews of the agreement they had made with him. Therefore he decreed as an irrevocable law and statute that thenceforth no Jew should dwell in his domains ("Ordonnances", vii. 675). According to the Religieux de St. Denis, the king signed this decree at the instance of the queen ("Chron. de Charles VI." ii. 119).[29] The decree was not immediately enforced, a respite being granted to the Jews in order that they might sell their property and pay their debts. Those indebted to them were enjoined to redeem their obligations within a set time; otherwise their pledges held in pawn were to be sold by the Jews. The provost was to escort the Jews to the frontier of the kingdom. Subsequently the king released the Christians from their debts."

Where did the French Jews go after being expelled from the Kingdom of France?

In this time period, would Jews have been allowed to live in Christian cities or were they forced to live in their own villages?

Would jewish peasants in Europe generally dressed the same as Christian peasants?

Who would cleanup battlefields after everything was said and done? What was the last reported finding of intact battlefields? Were there burnt out vehicles and bodies still being found decades later? I imagine jungles in the Pacific Islands being littered with bodies and vehicles. Do these still exist?

I have always heard that Iceland and Greenland were named as such to encourage people to head to Greenland and avoid the beauty of the green Iceland. Is there any truth to that? If not, where did the names originate from?

Hey gang, I've got a question for you that's sat in the back of my mind for the better part of a decade.

In my undergrad I had a Canadian History professor who was very much a Maritimes/East Coast historian. He was on the board of editors for Acadiensis, all that jazz. He was also a grumpy old coot with some pretty radical ideas and theories about both Eastern Canadian and Irish history.

He was also an anti-confederate and hated Sir John A with a fiery passion, but that's neither here nor there. Just a bit of character building.

Anyhow, in a second year course on the settlement of Canada's east coast he made a joking throwaway remark that St John's, Newfoundland was "the only European port in North America to be discovered rather than settled". This was in the context of migrant cod fishermen coming to Newfoundland and Labrador in the 15th century to take advantage of the huge schools of fish. Basques, Portuguese, Irish, Scandinavians, he said, would camp ashore in Newfoundland during summer months before returning home with their catch. According to him, these fishermen built up makeshift towns to pass their time.

He closed his discussion with "when they mapped Newfoundland, they found St John's to be a thriving port home to two taverns and a brothel."

I'm not sure if that whole lecture was just an elaborate setup to an arcane Newfie joke or if there is some kind of historical veracity to it.

I transferred schools not long after when my home history department was near completely gutted and changed my focus to Victorian history away from my local history/linguistics, so I never really followed up my questions about his lectures.

Until now!

So, what kind of veracity is there to my prof's claims? I'm pretty sure there's evidence of pre-Columbian European fishermen coming and going on the regular to Newfoundland, but beyond that I'm a blank slate. I'd love to hear /r/AskHistorians' views.