The first large cutter suction dredges were built by the Baltimore Machinery Co. for building the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal also used hundreds of steam shovels (I believe most built by Marion Steam Shovel Co.) on rails to dredge. Fast forward to the 1950's and cutter suctions dredges and excavator dredges (now diesel instead of steam) are everywhere. I'm having trouble finding how this technology developed and was adopted between 1914 and 1950.

I am just curious.

I was browsing r/worldnews and came across a thread about how Cuban Americans hate Castro for all of the things Castro did to them during the revolution and would never support lifting the embargo. What exactly did he do that caused these people to hold such a deep grudge for over 50 years?

I've heard mostly from Atheist that the Bible has no outside backing and is a historical lie. Now being a Christian I don't believe that, but what I believe doesn't matter when it comes down to the wire. So what do you all think and can you provide documents to back it up?

As someone in North America, all we hear about is the treaty of Versailles, nothing about the treaty of Trianon. I guess firstly why did there have to be two seperate treaties for germany and Austri-Hungary and did they differe greatly? Such as the massive indemnities, war-guilt and restriction of military?

Not necessarily a king or queen etc. Just the first to have a notable amount of followers and/or influence.

My history teachers and textbooks always give me the impression that Nazi Germany was a great juggernaut and it took the combine forces of Soviet Union, the British and US to defeat it, without Allies the world will be speaking Germans, yes I have heard many great technological advancement in weaponry like StG 44 and V2 rockets but they came in quite late to the war. I have read a few history forums, stories and articles that argue Nazi Germany was not military strong, some citizens was unwilling to go for another war and overall not military ready for war. I heard in 1938, when Hitler wanted to go war for Czechoslovakia but his generals were ready to overthrown him because their military was not ready and the Germans manage to enjoy great success early on the war because luck and the France was ill prepare for war and not because of superior equipments and tactics the Germans have. Furthermore, I heard Germany's economy was actually on verge of collapses instead of being stable and almost back to normal as what the textbook said. How much of this is true?

I want to know as I recently I have discover the contents in my textbooks are a bit bias and oversimplify many world historical facts.

I have always considered Alexander the Great as a king of Macedonia. However, I have started school in another country and they often refer to him as the last Persian king, or the first Hellenistic king. What would you call him? Why?

Edit: I have now also found a book that refers to him as the Roman Alexander.

Hello /r/AskHistorians. I apologise beforehand for spelling and grammar errors, English isn't my first language and I aim to improve it.

I'm on my way to start studying history after Christmas and are looking for some extended literature for classes next year.

I managed to pick some interesting topics and the suggested book list is fine. Still I would love some books on the following topics in order to extend my understanding.

Nationalism, imperialism and globalization, 1850-2000

Commercial capitalism, state power and revolutions 1500-1850

Thanks a lot :-)

and when did getting a "3 star" rating become a nearly impossible feat?

There is a 2011 study making the internet rounds these days and the less scrupulous are saying it shows 50% of Viking warriors were women. The study itself does not draw this conclusion. But it does beg the question whether or not warrior women were more common in these cultures than others at the time. If they were in fact more common, how did this affect gender roles at the time and in the future?

I know this may be difficult to answer because he was killed soon after the assassination, but what is the best guess? Was he a right-winger who hated JFK? A Soviet sympathizer who was angry that JFK invaded Cuba? Was he just someone seeking attention?

Any specific context or era is fine - my specific interest would be during the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars, but +/-100/200 years would be interesting as well

Did, say, people from Gaul have a reputation for being loud and brutish, or did Syrians have a reputation for being lazy and unbathed, etc. ?

General quality of life and life stories.

• Was it an authoritarian state?
• What were western views on Yugoslavia?
• How did it compare to the USSR?
• How did it compare to western nations?
• Do the people of former Yugoslavian states look on that past favourably?
• Was it a communist/socialist success story?

Basically what it says so in the title. Is economy and making money the biggest driving force in history? That's what one of my friends thinks at least. He views most if not all wars as being waged upon the sole purpose to make more money. Al the other factors that might contribute to the beginning of war like ideology or nationalism are purely a disguise for its true reasons, namely money. My friend is really stuborn in his view. I however have the feeling that that's not entirely so. I agree that economics is a big part of what drives history. But there are many other factors like enviorment, culture etc... I'm not asking you to be the judge and give me the "correct" driving force to ALL history. My questions is: are there any examples that this view of economics is wrong. Or I'm I wrong? Is history just money?