The rifle was produced in 1779, 12 years before the Second Amendment was adopted. But did the founding fathers know about it?

1. How many troops did they have at one time? You know, at its peak.

2. When did it peak? (what year?)

3. How big was the armed SS?

4. How many tanks, planes, and ships did Germany have? If you can go into more detail, how many of each type? It doesn't have to be the specific type of plane, tank, or ship but just like the category (light tank, medium tank, tanker, heavy tank, destroyer, orpedo boats, submarine, fighter, bomber, etc.)

Various reasons are given for the poor Italian performances in World War I and II, from a lack of economic capacity to the public not really supporting the war to poor equipment and training. Those are pretty straightforward, but the one that has always intrigued me was the almost fantastically bad performances of many high-level Italian officers, both at sea and on land. From Cadorna at the Isonzo to Graziani in Libya in 1940, it seems that most major Italian operations were poorly led, which only served to accentuate the other problems the Italians faced.

So is my perception of Italian military leadership during this period wrong, or was the general staff really full of terrible officers and if so, why?

Hi everybody, I need the vast resource of this page to help me with one of my papers I'm writing. Since the Scythian society didnt keep written records of their lifestyles, I have to use ethnographic parallels between the Mongols, Ossetians or any other group resembling / coming from the Scythians to understand the nature of their society and culture. Any help, comments, links, posts or general ideas are vastly appreciated!

I'm a Canadian on vacation in central Mexico and I can see influences and clear signs of Aztec culture everywhere, in arts, food, advertising, language, the people, and just generally a superior knowledge of indigenous history and culture.

Why exactly did this sort of mixture between Spanish and Mesoamerican traditions and culture occur on such a large and effective scale in Mexico, but so much less so in Canada? Were British and French settlers less receptive of other cultures than Spaniards? Were the indigenous peoples of Canada less willing to share their culture with Europeans? Is it something else entirely? I'm aware of the Métis people and their unique culture and ancestry, but their numbers and dominance aren't nearly on the scale of the millions upon millions of mestizo people of Mexico, who form it's ethnic majority, and most dominant cultural identity in their country.

Forgive me for any inaccuracies or errors in the post, and I hope you can answer my question!

In both Gelzer and Goldsworthy's work on Caesar, they say he one of his key military advantages was how quickly he could move his troops. Both give the number of 90 miles a day. How is this possible? Did they have enough horses to move the army? Even if these were Roman miles, that's still >80 miles a day.

Other people claim that it's because their agriculture was so good that it encouraged growth naturally, but I'm curious if there was a governmental reason also. Thanks!

Did they have any plans for conquering other territories? Did they want to completely control the US or just maintain their own country?

Were breasts always seen in a sexual light? It seems there are many indigenous cultures to this day for whom exposed breasts are not taboo.

I'd be willing to get more specific and focus on western cultures. Is there any historical evidence that female breasts were at some point not a big deal to expose?

I'm curious because breasts are not primary sexual organs so I'm wondering why and how we got so hung up about seeing them. How did they go from milk machines for babies to titillating erotic appendages?

I thought about this during my history class today. To me, it doesn't make much sense as it's far away from the other states and, of course, it's very cold up there.

This is a fairly common refrain I've heard many times in normal conversations about America's less than honorable side of history, and while it's hard not to agree in principle, I've always wondered how much of that is a gross oversimplification. Or if it actually has been empirically measured somehow. It would be pretty fascinating either way.

Hi everyone, I'm currently working on a paper for school and I'm having a beast of a time finding the right sources. My topic is the English home front during WWI, with a focus on rationing and food supply. I was hoping to take an angle towards hoarding and the black market (people using cheap fillers, etc.) but I don't seem to be coming across many secondary sources that really delve into it. For primary sources, I've been trying to uncover any legal hearings/prosecutions/trials/etc. relating to the black market, but again, nothing. I'm starting to worry that I won't have enough sources to reach my page requirement, but I really can't change topics now, so any and all help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

I'm just watching Roots, where the white slave drivers routinely rape the black women, and then enslave their half-white kids as well. I was just wondering what they thought of the hybrids. I mean to put it in context, that's like me having a son with a chimpanzee. And then enslaving it. Wouldn't that have some kind of controversy surrounding it?

Were half whites considered half human? Where there taboos around the subject, or intellectual debates between competing theories? What did the church have to say about it? Was it not frowned upon to enslave your own blood?

This quote is from "Drink: A Cultural History of Alcohol". I don't have a real reason to doubt it, I am just looking for sources that back this up or elaborate on it.

I know that in the 13th century ale price is capped at 1 penny for 2 gallons. Had ale prices significantly decreased by the end of the 14th century? If so, what were the reasons? Or perhaps bread and a big joint of meat are just cheaper than I am imagining?