It seems to me, someone who has not looked into this much as if for several hundred years from around 1000 to until maybe the 1700's there were very few universities in Europe, really just a handful, and they had small class sizes as well. I know this is very hard to answer objectively, but did a disproportionate amount of new human knowledge come from these early schools, or were they predominantly social places for rich youth to enjoy some drinks and have a good time.

Were doctors the first addicts? Where could addicts on the street get needles 100 years ago? I know in parts of the world people have smoked opium for a long time, but I wonder how the idea first got spread around to shoot it? Did this practice start in one particular culture or country? If so, why? or was there a particular reason it happened this way? or was it just the desire to get higher, faster?

I don't know if this question has been asked before. I tried searching a couple different ways, but the question could be worded so many ways that there was no way to know for sure if I was repeating something. Also, I don't know if it's possible to answer this but my SO asked me so I turned to this site to see if I could get any help. Thanks.

When I hear and read about people during this era, it is said that they smelled really bad, and rarely took a bath. Is this really documented and true, and is there any documentation from the time where someone actually complains about another persons odor? And if so - if people were aware of the bad smell - why didn't they just wash themselves? There must have been lakes and rivers close to towns, weren't there?

The atrocities I'm referring to are mainly the ones outlined in the first chapter of A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. How exceptional were they for Europe as a society? Were these acts common and easily overlooked? Or were they viewed as horrific?

Edit: Sorry, I removed the link to the book.

I'm sure there are many ways to answer this question, so here are a couple things that interest me most:

• Was music often performed for an audience in a music hall as it is today? What was the most common way for music to be heard (especially new compositions)?

• Were musicians as dedicated to perfecting technique as they are today? I know that at least some pianists have made it their life goal to perfect the playing of a piece. Did composers care for a performer's mastery of their works?

I'm doing research on Senator Eugene McCarthy (NOT the McCarthy who hunted communists, but the one who ran for president in 1968). While reading the transcripts of some of his speeches from the later 1950s, I noticed he keeps vaguely referring to scandals, corruption, and general immorality in national politics that apparently got a lot of media attention, but doesn't name anything in particular. This did not seem related to the communist witch hunt at all. When I looked up 1950s American politics I couldn't find anything of the sort except Nixon's "Checkers Scandal", which happened in '52. Does anyone have examples of what McCarthy may have been referring to? I apologize if this question seems a little vague.

While much of our time is spent on answering questions about Nazi Germany and Hitler, somehow this has escaped our sub. Considering that Hitler and the German higher ups were interested in the Occult, what did Hitler and the others think about Nostradamus? And the famous "Hister" prediction, did Hitler think of himself as the Hister that was mentioned?

With all of the napalm and Agent Orange missions done in America's longest war, do we know how much of the jungle was destroyed? (square mileage is what I'm curious about)

Eumenes has to be a very interesting person among all the generals during Alexander the Greats time. He was secretary to his father and later accountant/general to Alexander. He seems very capable to catch the eye of Phillip and seems like an intelligent person during his life and seems important enough to be mentioned in Plutarchs Parallel Lives and met a sad ending.

I have a few questions about him and also what Alexnader himself mightve thought of him.

What Ive been reading, mostly wiki and google searches, that while Alexander was alive he was on conflicting odds with Hephaestion. Do we know why?

After Alexanders death he allied with Perdiccas, regent of the empire, and was war with Craterus, one of Alexanders body guards and generals. This seems he was very strategically and tactically knowledgeable to take on such a veteran. Did this cause any tension between Eumenes and his troops who might be wondering why their fighting their own generals or were they considered traitors for seeking their own power.

After Perdiccas is assassinated by his own troops, Eumenes allies with the next regent, Polyperchon. Were these power moves or was he really actually trying to restore power to the royal family? A just cause I think but what seems to be a vain attempt considering the many enemies.

Ive read he was cunning foe and borrowed money from enemies and allies alike, which secured his position as if he died they wouldnt be paid back. His track record at also defeating previous generals of Alexanders and also able to not sustain a grevious defeat while on the run from much large foes for years seems he was capable in many ways but was betrayed by incompetence and duplicity. Given up by his own men and captured by Antigonus.

Do we have any reliable sources about these battles and any of his other achievements in detail up until his death?

What would have Alexander thought of him as a secretary and general?

I'm looking for some more information about something I dimly remember learning in college. As it was explained to me, the kind of bigotry against non-whites that we think of as racism today is a direct outgrowth of the arguments that Europeans used during the colonial period to justify eradicating and enslaving "savages". In essence, the argument was that modern racism (if that's even the right term) is an effect of the colonial period and the slave trade, rather than a cause of it.

Is this a generally accepted view, and can any experts elaborate further on this stuff for me?

Examples might include Constitutional Amendments or perhaps when large percentages of incumbents were thrown out of Congress which brought about significant changes to legislation + the direction of the country (this is subjective but would be curious to know your definitions). How did the changes happen? Who were leaders in those movements? What conditions were in place prior and afterward? What techniques were used to advocate and rally support for change?

Would love to hear about any book or blog recommendations on the topic (especially books with compelling lessons learned + interesting stories about strategy and tactics and human behavior vs. a recitation of facts like many history books).

I recently had a chance to visit the Monhegan archipelago in the US state of Maine, and I heard about the supposed Viking inscription there. While I was on the island, due to a lack of time, I didn't get a chance to actually see the inscription myself, something which I'm kinda bummed about.

Since in addition to my Byzantine studies, I am very interested in Pre-Columbian New England and the Maritimes, I would like to know more about the academic consensus on the inscription. I have read that one guy (Barry Fell, who seems like a quack) argued it was Phoenician in origin, but that seems very unlikely to me. I definitely like the Viking theory better, but, having not seen an actual picture of the carving myself, nor seen it in person, I haven't been able judge whether it seems authentic or not. Anyone care to elaborate?

Hello, I've been trying to find some information on the 286th Security Regiment, and German security regiments in general.

Generally I've been trying to figure out what their TO&E looked like and what an average security regiment would be doing on the Eastern Front during 1944/45.

Specifically I would like to know information about the 286th Security Regiment during Bagration. All I was able to find out so far was that it was a part of the 4th Army East of Orsha. At this time it consisted of: Grenadier Regiment 638 (French volunteers that would eventually be folded into SS Charlemagne) Infantry Regiment 61 Infantry Regiment 122 Infantry Regiment 354 II./ Artillery Regiment 213 Alarm Battalion 704 (Most likely not in existence) Signals Battalion 825 Reiterhundertschaft 286 (Apparently a small cavalry company)

Although I;m not sure what kind of equipment each of these units would have. I wouldn't imagine they would be equipped like a normal Infantry Division or Grenadier Division, but I could be wrong.

The 286th was destroyed during Bagration with most of the rest of the 4th Army, although 400 men from Grenadier Regiment 638 held a crossing at the Bryobransk or Berezina river (possibly the city of Borisov on the Berezina) with the support of five Tiger tanks and Stuka dive bombers later in the battle. Different sources mention Bryobransk and Berezina, but they all agree on the Tigers and Stukas. I wasn't able to find Bryobransk river, but I thought it might be talking about Borisov which would put it on the Berezina.

Unfortunately this is all the information I've been able to find. Security Divisions aren't quite as cool as most everything else and information seems pretty scarce. At least as far as their organization down to Company level and combat experience. There is quite a bit of info regarding their participation in the killings of civilians. However, that isn't information that I am interested in.

This question may be silly -- but I'm sitting at home recovering from surgery and have been on a WWII movie/tv show kick.

Currently, I'm watching Inglorious Basterds (yes the opposite of historically accurrate) and I watched all of Band of Brothers this past weekend.

In both show/movie the high ranking Germans speak English. My dad's family is German and my grandpa was not good at English. I find most older people in Germany haven't learned as much English (or any at all) as our younger generation.

Were there a lot of high ranking officers who spoke English? Or were translators almost always needed, and the (I assume) English in the movies/shows is just because the majority of the audience is English-speaking.

Thank you!

From what I've always understood, Jefferson was strongly in favor of states' rights.

While he was President did he continue to advocate for that position, and did he take any actions that greatly expanded the power of the Feds at the expense of the state?

If so, are his feelings on that action documented and was he conflicted about it?

I've always been fascinated by Joan of Arc. If the historical aspects of her story are true, as they're widely accepted to be, she is one of the most interesting people in history. The religious visions aside, how is it possible that a teenage girl talked her way into the French court, won the Dauphin's trust, and proceeded to lead the French army to several victories?

As an aside, what are the theories on her visions?

I know the answer is very complex, but I still wonder if there are any events in history that would partly explain why Africa was worse off than countries on other continents. America and India was colonized, so that can't be the only answer considering neither America or India is in as much hardship as most African countries. It can't only be a result of wars, China's economy boomed.