It seems like bulldogs are a pretty common mascot for American Universities and their athletic programs. Why was this breed singled out? Why aren't other breeds popular as mascots?

I'm listening to the radio being glutinous about the fiftieth anniversary of his funeral and it's all about how loved he was, but he was decisively defeated in the first election. Why?

Hello all,

I have wanted to pursue studies concerning WWI in graduate school for a while now. I have acquainted myself with some of the current scholarship out there regarding this era, like Margaret MacMillan, Christopher Clark, Max Hastings, Sean McMeekin, and of course some earlier stuff like Barbara Tuchman. I am particularly interested in British culture on the eve of, during, and after the Great War. I'm also particularly interested in the religious world of the time, for example: what was the Church of England's role in encouraging young British men to fight; did the the CoE initially support the war and if so, did it maintain that support?

I have been tearing my hair out trying to find specific authors and scholars who have spilled some ink on this issue (that are still currently living and teaching) and have had trouble finding a particular institution with a history dept. that specializes in Great War studies. Any advice that someone on here could give me would be invaluable to me and help me a lot. I understand that it's difficult for many of you to respond as you would like because many of you are graduate students yourselves, but anything and everything is welcome. Thank you in advance!

I realized a while ago that I really don't know much about Aztec law outside of a few common things. I'm particularly interested in three things:

1. Law Enforcement on a local level

2. How judgment was passed

3. The severity of punishments the Aztec legal system would give

As an American whenever we discuss WWII we always hear the "Nazis did this..." and "the Nazis did that..." but not "the Germans did...". We name Japan, USA and Russia as just countries, not by the ruling political party. But why don't we do it for Germany? I've heard that the Nazis didn't have the full support of the people, but it seems that would have been the same for other nations too. We don't hold the Democratic Party responsible for the bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, or the internment camps. Both are recognized as American acts, but routinely we hear about Nazi action during WWII instead referring to it as German action. The holocaust is one such event that is blamed on the Nazis but not the German people that made up the bulk of the Nazi hierarchy and was carried out with support from the German people(maybe not the mass executions, but the night of broken glass and other general support).

I remember hearing it said, in particular, children were taught that Columbus was a Nazi. Is there any truth in this?

Where bar shootouts common? Train robberies? What about the classic duels? How much is true and how much is Hollywood flair

If so, why did Germany form an alliance with Austia-Hungary?

Dear redditors,

While reading about the Marshall plan I was surprised to see that the Netherlands received a rather large amount of money when compared to other countries. Looking at the total figure of 1128 million dollars it forms a sharp contrast when compared to 777 million for the Belgians and with 1204 million for the Italians.

Besides that I am also curious as to why the Dutch economy outgrew that of Belgium in the after-war period. Wasn't Belgium a far more industrialized country before the war?

OR Why was the English army small enough that it could be defeated by a French duke?

Surely as duke of Normandy, William would have had access to much fewer men than the king of England. Did William hire mercenaries or bring in allies from elsewhere? Was England in some kind of state of weakness, other than having just fought off Harald Hardrada?

Are all of the languages spoken on the Indian subcontinent Indo-European from after the Aryan invasions or do language groups exist in Southern India or Sri Lanka that are unique or isolates, along the lines of Basque in Europe?

They had many similar factors affecting them—many resources, bordering "barbarian" hordes, positioned at the edge of a continent—but they developed differently enough that Qing China got crushed by the Europeans when they met. What gives?