So it seems like the US began using pump action shotguns to great success in its colonial wars and so had no qualms about bringing them to Europe.

These trench guns were extremely useful and the German government lodged an official complaint against the US about them being excessively cruel weapons. The US ignored this complaint because ... poison gas warfare.

Are 00buckshot wounds noticeably different from shrapnel?

Was Germany legitimately concerned or was this a diplomatic maneuver to buy time or negotiate or anything more to it?

Did Germany test their own trench shotguns for stormtroopers to fight fire with fire?

How did European royalty respond to domestic violence? Also what would be the reaction of it becomes common knowledge and I don't intervene

The invasion of Poland by Nazi-Germany on the first of september was the tipping point when the allied nations realized that the appeasement policy did not work. As a result they declared war on Nazi-Germany with the reason that it was an invasion of an independent and sovereign country which it was. Yet 16 days later the SU invaded Poland as well on the 17th of september but this time the allies did not declare war on the SU. My question therefore is quite simple: Why did they not?

Did they realize that Poland could not be saved anymore? Were they afraid that the SU and Nazi-Germany would team up against them?

P.S. if there are spelling errors or other minor issues (which there probably are), excuse it as it is not my mother tongue.

It seems like Vindolanda is kind of the Birleys' private gig, which is curious. Who is in charge of the archaeology there? Is it the state or some public authority or the Birleys themselves? (I read that they actually own part of the land!)

Perhaps as context it might be interesting to hear how archaeology is normally carried out in England, and if Vindolanda is any different?

Seriously asking because people have told this to me,but I'm not sure of their sources.

As time has passed and World War I has moved from living memory, how has this changed the historiography of the Great War?

It is occasionally mentioned on reddit that the food pyramid was unhealthy, that it was modified to encourage excessive bread and/or meat consumption after efforts by lobbyists, and that this significantly contributed to the obesity epidemic.

To what extent is this true?

Were field promotions in this manner common in WWI within the Commonwealth? My impression is that bravery and leadership ability are mutually exclusive traits and that acts of bravery wouldn’t necessarily mean that a brave solider is a competent leader. An additional question: at one point in the series the platoon sergeant was promoted to a lieutenant. I understand the need to fill positions of authority due to the lack of available junior officers but was it normal for an NCO to be promoted to an officer, given that officers were generally commissioned due to their social hierarchy as opposed to ability at that time?

As in, was there an instrument of a similar role/sound before, which saxophone improved upon, or Adolphe Sax just created a new cool sounding thing and everyone started using it?

The Peoples Temple was a very pro-Soviet organisation, and many last testaments specifically requested their assets be transferred to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (whether or not this was under duress isn't the point).

So how did the Soviets react to the Jonestown Massacre? Did they get the bank assets from the victims?

Hello everyone. I'm making a tabletop RPG campaign, using AD&D and an old book about vikings. I intend to use the petty kingdom of Agder, south of Norway, before Harald Granraud's death, but I don't know exactly how to describe a kingdom at this age. How many people are we talking about? 5.000, 10.000? How many "provinces"? How many ships. I've read that there wasn't so many Jarls, so, how many would have in a kingdom like Agder? I appreciate any help, I'm a little obsessed with details and like to go deep in settings with my players. Thank you.

I should specify I am referring to the United States but am happy for information about other countries as well. Watching media from the early part of the 20th century you see that men wore formal suits and women long, what I would consider fancy dresses in daily life. Walking on the street in the city, at a baseball game, at the beach, the appropriate attire was a jacket and tie no matter where you were. Today if you showed up at a baseball game in a three piece suit people would be looking at you pretty funny.

When did this shift take place and what were the social and cultural circumstances that lead to it?

Virtually every amphibious military operations have been conducted during daylight hours ever since the Gallipoli campaign with the exception of some special forces, exactly why is this the case?

Were scholars' safety threatened, given the activities of some violent political groups during the transition to democracy? Did the state make it difficult to get accurate data? etc.

Once nobody came to their support unlike the First Slesvig War, the Danish must have realised that its hopeless, as Prussia alone could, if it wanted to, number an army ten times their numbers. Not to mention that their armies were of course of higher standard and quality.

So why then did the Danish go through with their plan anyway? Why fight a hopeless war? Even if they thought that some ally might still come to their rescue, the risk seems not worth taking.