I was a child of the 90s, and what was called alternative rock at the time seemed to be one of the most dominant types of rock, with the "alternative" label thus appearing to be the artifact of a different time. If I didn't know better, I would assume that it was called that by reason of being an alternative to the glam metal that fell out of popularity in the early 90s, but the Wikipedia article on alternative rock suggest that the roots of this category and label go back to the 1970s.

Looking up sources on her death, all I found was that she had discoloration of the heart. This is often thought to be heart cancer.

Heart cancer is very, very rare though. Maybe she was just one of the unlucky ones to get it. Or maybe the tumor was metastatic? It also could have possibly been something besides cancer, right?

Is the heart rumor even accurate? I've heard some say it was a slight against her character.

By "A different approach" I don't mean a full on jump into the 20th or 21st century with mission-type tactics, but common sense issues like allowing my men to at least move when they meet enemy infantry on the battlefield instead of standing there as target practice and firing volleys; they would be allowed to crawl, to duck, to search for cover, to fire at will, etc.

Just looking at some old war graves and noticed that was his job. What would that entail? He was buried in Lyon, France if that helps!

Also is there a database of German soldiers in the Wehrmacht where one could get maybe more information? Place or birth etc

Thanks!

I am currently researching slavery in Connecticut.

I am finding it hard to come by sources so I am mostly using popular sites run by various historical societies.

One interesting thing I have found is that slavery is often not mentioned in these secondary documents. Only coming up when abolitionism is mentioned and even then in the context of people freeing their slaves.

Was slavery so unremarkable in New England at the time that every man of means can be assumed to have owned slaves? Why is slavery in New England ignored in popular memory? Do you, venerable historians, have any records or sources that may help in my quest for understanding?

The only popular source that addresses slavery at length that I have found so far is the Yale website on slavery in Connecticut.

Where did they originated from like from what I know they came from modern day azerbaijan?

I’m getting very confused about how the change in Vice President appointments were made. So, I get that in 1796 Jefferson lost, and he then became VP. He then ran in 1800 against Adams and won. Why didn’t Adams become VP? Did he not want to? I know the election was nasty, and he didn’t even turn up for the inauguration. The 12th amendment in 1804 changed the system, but that was after the election of 1800 (obviously haha). Then what I don’t get is why were there running mates? Even if something changed before the 1800 election I don’t know about, that process (loser to VP) still was enacted in 1796. Why did Adams and Jefferson have a running mate for that election, when the loser of the election would be VP. In case a crisis happened? Also, when did the change happen that president and VP were elected together. I think that became more of a thing later in the 1800, but when were they first “stuck” together?

Lastly, while I’m interested in my next question, I’m far more interested in the above information. Why (maybe also how) was John C Calhoun the running mate for John Quincy Adams as well as Jackson in the same year?

Hopefully I made sense!

In light of the graves discovered at Canadian Indian residential schools, is it likely that Indian boarding schools in the U.S. also have mass graves? Did Indigenous children have similar experiences in American Indian boarding schools to those at Canadian Indian residential schools?

I’m mainly interested in the Caribbean and Guyana/Suriname but other regions such as New York and Dutch Brazil would be much appreciated!

So, I have been looking at Hides of Land in 8th - 10th C. England (Pre-Norman). I'm very interested in their taxing system and how granular it gets.

So, in theory (though I'm interested about what happens in practice, I find it almost always boils down to "screws the poor"), a Hide was an amount of land to support a family. But the term is poorly defined.

What family? Did it include Uncle Joe? Did a person with 8 children get more or better land than someone with 2 children? Could the boundaries of your land fluctuate over time?

How much food is "support"? Obviously, it has to be more than a bare minimum for survival because the family would owe food rent. So, was half the land for the family and half for the various lords and priests who taxed the land?

Also, ans slightly unrelated,, was a Hundred more valuable than 100 disparate Hides? Does it follow the "many hands make light work" theory? If so, would it face higher taxes since the land could yield more?

The most recent non-answer I found was 1997 or so, but that basically is a long version of "idk".

Any thoughts are very appreciative even if they come from other times or cultures, but on the same theme.

Ive know for awhile that the catacombs were built to store bodys becuse they were over flowing the normal places. but why put them in these extravagant designs and lining up based on 1 type of bone?

wouldnt it make more sense to make it more uniform and basic?

It is neither the literal title of empire (Portugal was a colonial empire, but had the title of a kingdom),

nor ruling over multiple ethnicities (the German Empire only ruled over Germans, with just a small Polish and Danish minority),

nor ruling over multiple consituent states (the Second French Empire only ever ruled over the French state, the old medieval French states like the Duchy of Aquitaine or Burgundy were long gone, meanwhile the Austrian Empire ruled over many constituent states like the Kingdom of Hungary and the Kingdom of Lombardo-Venetia, but both were empires)

nor is it owning colonies, as many empires did not own colonies (Swedish Empire)

Nor is it economically influencing other states (Soviet Union, USA) as essentially every nation would be an empire then.

What were the next steps taken by world leaders and what were the first military actions taken in the aftermath?

If memory serves, the vaccine was based on too much preexisting work to be deemed patentable, yet this unearned attribution to his selflessness as the reason it was not patented is trotted out almost as often as "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

Is the image of Spartan society being entirely based on warfare an exaggeration? I know most pre-industrial societies have had a warrior class of some sort; Samurai, Eagle and Jaguar Warriors, medieval knights, who spent their lives around combat, but it seems the entirety of Spartan civilization revolved around it, taking all the boys off at 7 years old for training, the men all living in barracks, if I understand correctly, except to sneak off and impregnate their wife. I know there was a middle class of Perioeci, but they weren't part of the citizen body, and not really Spartans. And even the slave system of the helots was totally based around working the plots of land assigned to feed each Spartan citizen-soldier, rather than individual profit. Was there any particular war or event that triggered this militarization of the entire society? And is it as hardcore as the modern layperson is led to believe? Or does it just apply to a particular era of Spartan history?

​

Thanks.

So over the past year I've been reading a decent amount of history, such as Harvard's series on China and J. H. Elliot's book on the Spanish and British Empires. Reading these books have really changed my perspective on the growing European expansion, like how the europeans trading with Qing actually respected them much and how Qing ignored the Europeans most of the time since they didnt have much that they needed from them, how the conquistadors were really only able to conquer the Aztecs and gain a foothold on continental America due to good timing with revolts, and how the EIC used diplomacy and intrigue as conquest to slowly take over India. All of this made me wonder, pre industrial wise (I accept that with the industrial revolution the european powers gained large advantages technologically, economically, and militarily), were the European powers on-par with their non-European counterparts?

Before the independence in 1822, Brazil had been elevated to a Kingdom in Union with Portugal in 1808, with the Royal Court now located in the old colonial capital. Why did the independence movement decided to crown Pedro as Emperor if Brazil was already considered a Kingdom for at least a decade? Was it a political semantics reason, to differentiate from its old status under Portugal? Was it an answer to the liberals in Portugal that wanted to revert the elevation of the country to a constituent Kingdom? Or was there a completely different justification?

Margaret Tudor's husband James IV of Scotland was killed by an English army. Her brother Henry was in France at the time, with England run by Catherine of Aragon, who played a part in the army that won the Battle of Flodden (although she didn't command it, but I think she was there and gave a speech to inspire the soldiers).

After her husband's death, she stayed in Scotland, as tutor to the young King James V, until she lost a power struggle, and escaped to England. Later she went back and seized power again in Scotland. She seemed to ask her brother for money a lot.

I wondered if there's evidence of resentment towards her brother and his wife for the death of her husband... or did she not really care?

Seeing as they had accomplished so much first regarding the space race before America, why did they never put a man on the moon?

I doubt that they lacked the means to do so

After information has been extracted from the POWs, how were they treated? Information wins wars, and so all sorts of techniques have been developed in order to extract this valuable information from captured enemies. My question is what happened to these POWs after the interrogation, as well as whether promises the captors guaranteed were in fact acted upon? I would guess that in earlier times, more humane forms of interrogation have not been developed yet, and so those who were interrogated upon were simply disposed off after they reveal what they know (do they wait to find out if the information is accurate before they dispose of them?). More modern forms of interrogation like those done during world war 2 between the European countries probably treated their POWs more humanely, so that future POWs will be less guarded and thus more easily reveal their information. How wrong am I?

Hello, I'd like to ask you all a bunch of questions about space race, namely:

• Did the Soviets care about landing on the moon before the Americans? If yes, how much?
• How did the Soviet attempts to land on the moon look?
• Should the space race be viewed as one race with the moon landing as its finish instead of multiple, smaller races to different "firsts" in the space? Therefore, should Americans be considered winners of the space race when Soviets did much more?

I watched a video on the history of the Middle East by EmperorTigerstar and it appeared as if the only time Saudi Arabia was inhabited by a centralized society was during the original caliphates. Why was there such a lack of interest in the peninsula for around a millennia?