Supreme Court decisions sometimes get reversed by later decisions. What decision or decisions have been explicitly reversed (by a later decision rather than legislation or constitutional amendment) the quickest? What drove the about face and was it predicted at the time of the initial decision?

Ex. Germans precise and dominating, the French lovers and bad at war, Or the English having bad teeth?

Why was the British Sten Submachine gun of WW2 chambered in 9 mm?

Normally in war, you try to avoid having ammunition which the enemy can use when captured. The German MP40 was chambered in 9 mm also, but the American Thompson and M3 "grease gun" were both .45 ACP.

From what I've read the biggest threat that feared was saboteurs and the fleet didn't expect a large scale threat from the air. It just seems like AA weapons would be standard operating procedure for all of the airfields in the area. Was the Army just not concerned with threats from the air so they didn't have adequate AA guns? Was there something else that prevented the army from putting up stiff AA resistance?

I'm not a student of history, so please forgive me if this question has an obvious answer. I'm aware that many countries fought to be free from the empire that owned them. Are there any examples of countries/territories simply buying their freedom instead, with minimal or no military activity?

What was the first European country post-476 AD without hereditary rulers or an institutionalized aristocracy?

Edit: Forgot the word "first."

Himmler and Heydrich destroyed Rohm for personal and aspirational reasons- did Hitler ever come to understand that he'd been played a bit? Did he retaliate in any way or did the resulting power that the demonstration and purge provided negate any hard feelings?

To me, the obvious reason for transference is ultimately because of the Norman Conquest. But I wondered if there was any more to it.

Why didn't more African Americans move out West after the Civil War, and especially after Reconstruction? I know that the Hollywood image of all white cowboys is nonsense, and there were many black cowboys, as well as people in other types of work. Why didn't more African Americans settle there though, as in get married, raise a family, and so forth. At least to judge from many of those states current populations, that didn't happen much. Why? As I understand it, most of the people who moved West in that era were people who had few prospects in the East, which would certainly apply to many African Americans. I'm sure there was prejudice out West, but it seems hard to believe that it was worse than in the South.

I've always wondered, because it seems like a lot of Puritans supported Parliament over the King in the English Civil War. Could them living in America also be the reason American colonists were so quick to rise up against King George and the people who owned slaves in the South?

It appears that most (all?) social animals group along matrilines with males being expelled from the group soon after maturity. On the other hand, the majority of modern societies group families along the patriline. When did this become common? Was it always the case among humans?

My child is 3 and we have started reading the nat get little kids first book of space. We really enjoy it and I was wondering if there is something similar for history? I have always enjoyed reading about history and I would like to be able to share that with my child.

The opposition to Israel on religious grounds by the Muslims living in the area is well known, but was there any backlash at the time on religious grounds by Christian leaders? Obviously Israel contains Christian holy sites and significant effort has been expended throughout history on obtaining Christian control of that land. Was there any serious opposition for Christian religious reasons?

Castille and Aragon united most of the Iberian peninsula and sent expeditions to the Americas before the 1500s. Two decades later, Spain was the Holy Roman Emperor with possessions in the Low Countries, one of the world's premier navies, and substantial colonial holdings.

What happened and what stopped Spain from dominating Europe?

This one's a topic from /u/cephalopodie, who provided an excellent description in last week's topics thread:

I'm sure every field has them, those myths that, for whatever reason, have become cemented in the public understanding. They probably have their origins in the truth, but somewhere along the way things went a bit wobbly. Maybe A Guy wrote a book that was super popular but not really accurate? Maybe a theory was created when there was limited information, and now there's more and better information that proves that theory wrong? How have those myths shaped your field and the public perception of it? What's the real story? What bits of the myth are kinda-sorta true? When was the myth created, and by whom?

So, what are some myths in your field that people believe, despite historians attempting to rally against them?

Remember, moderation in these threads will be light - however, please remember that politeness, as always, is mandatory. Also, if you're looking to get flair, these threads are great to use for those purposes :)

My childhood history books seem to suggest that there was almost an immediate reversal back to what civilisation (that may not be the right word) was like hundreds of years before the Romans, but I find that kind of hard to believe.

Also a follow-up question: did civilisation revert back to being significantly better than pre-Romans, was it similiar, or was it worse?