I was recently reading an article about the whole "There are no atheists in a foxhole" quote; it basically argued that during times of extreme war or conflict, there was an obvious increase in religious activity due to the fear of ones own life.

I was therefore wondering, is this actually true; do soldiers generally believe in a greater power during a conflict?

Is this only true of Western civilisations or is this universal?

The more I hear about it in class, the more it doesn't make sense to me. The Roman Catholic Church was meant to be a big symbol of good and the Vatican was the center of it, yet they did nothing? Can someone explain why they didn't pick a side?

I was searching for population level comparisons pre battle of Stalingrad versus that of today. Has the city recovered completely yet and if not why?

Jean Jaurès was a French socialist very active in 1914 to try to defuse the possibility of war between France and Germany. He was the main artisan between the Second International's plan to make a simultaneous general strike in Germany and France if war was declared. He was killed on 29th of July 1914. War was declared 5 days later. Without him, the plan did not go forward.

Had he not died, some suggest that it would just have handicapped France's chances (somehow assuming that Germany would suppress strikes quicker) and some other suggest that it could have defused the whole situation. Does /r/askhistorians/ has any light to shed on this?

It seems pretty clear that slavery enriched the planter class, but what about average white male Southerners? Did large slave plantations depress the value of the small-time farmer's crops significantly? Did slave labor depress the wages of white laborers? Would abolition have benefitted the majority of whites in the south?

If so, did any politicians seriously attempt to make this argument to Southerners?

I've heard this discussion a lot from my scholarly friends at church, who have gone to school for history or philosophy or seminary. They all say that there are lots of texts that can be cross referenced with many books of the New Testament.

I want to know about these books/writings and how they're viewed in the historical community. Are they reliable? Do historians generally agree with the events of the New Testament? Is there a consensus that Jesus did exist and people followed him around (not necessarily that he was the Son of God or performed miracles, but that some of these events definitively happened)?

Also, feel free to apply to the same question to the Old Testament, since my original question asked about The Bible as a whole.

I'm not asking about the mechanics of how huge monuments like the Taj Mahal, the Pyramids, or the Forbidden City were built. I'd like to know how circumstances allowed for the construction of such massive buildings that may or may not have provided practical use for anybody.

For example: over 3,000 years after the construction of the Pyramid of Menkaure, Al-Aziz Uthman proved barely able to even damage the Pyramid despite his best efforts.

How did circumstances, be they labor, political, or engineering related, prevent Al-Aziz Uthman from matching the power of Ancient Egypt?

I honestly have no idea, and it's hard to find an unbiased source.

Also, how does the term tie into the conquests of the Caliphs?

Background: I am running a tabletop game for some friends where they are in the middle of a war. I would like to figure out ahead of time what was the etiquette during siege, in case they end up there. The culture is a combination of europe and china and before widespread use of gunpowder.

I have been able to find a few things about the mechanics of a siege. Things like trebuchets were more to mess with the defenders, the main goal was to dig under the walls to make them fall, and that charges we see in the movies were only if they were short on food and couldn't keep the siege going.

However, I still have some questions about how the people related.

• How would the besieged act? How stressful would it be for, say, 100 soldiers to hold out for a week, month, or more? Did the leadership ever institute special laws.
• In a similar way, what were the problems the besiegers have to face among their men? I would expect many would become irritable after sitting for a long enough time. Were there any 'unusual' practices which would occur?
• How common was it for an army allied with the defenders to attack the besiegers? Was is a constant threat, did people know well in advance, or did it rarely happen due to the mentality for a siege?
• Are there noted practices for envoys to try and negotiate? For instance, would they meet in a no-mans zone? Would they scream over walls? Or was it usually a case of absolute surrender?
• Were priests viewed in different ways during a siege? Goes for both sides.

Hello everybody,

In light of recent events in Catalonia, I've been seeing the claim that Catalonia was self-governing (or even independent) before 1714 a lot in magazine articles as well as on forums. Leaving aside politics, my question to you is what truth is there behind that claim? My understanding is that Catalonia formed part of the Kingdom of Aragon.

Many thanks in advance for your replies.

Were black activists allowed into the major conventions such as the Seneca Falls Convention? Did race even play a part in women's rights?

It would be interesting to know about this, in both the lesbian and gay possibilities for the scenario.

I'd imagine as always the answer is some did and some didn't, but one was probably more prevalent than the other.

A person I was talking to made this claim today. Supposedly both were acting like they were the true legitimate Germany and refused to be the first to budge as a point of principle. Can anyone confirm or debunk this?

Currently in my first year of University, and I already have a general idea of what courses I need to take in order to get any degree I want. I'm wondering, however, the process needed or recommend for someone interested in pursing a job of teaching History at the university level. Any help from anyone would be wonderful.

EDIT:Thank you everyone for the information! I've been feeling nervous recently about where my career aspirations will take me in the future, so seeing so many people with diverse backgrounds and experiences giving me realistic but helpful advice has given a lot of relief for the anxiety have been feeling. Not having a single clear answer I find very helpful, as it reflects how our global culture is constantly changing and affecting all those connected to it, with no pure certainty of what will happen to us based on our actions and the actions of people surrounding us. These comments do not sigh me away from a career as a prof someday, but gives me a balanced look of what may or may not occur if I do pursue that goal.

One aspect I probably should have cleared up in my original post: What is the process like in Central Canada, and will that improve or hurt my chances in the University market?

Thank you all again!

In films and photographs from the Second World War we see the dead left behind as units advance. In Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan we don't see that behavior anymore.

How were the dead handled by the U.S. Army and Marines in WW2?