Hello history people,

I want to know more about the historical issues throughout the Bible, from a strictly secular perspective. Are there any recommendations for books or supplements that cover this?

I know there's plenty of information about how clothes were cleaned in ancient Rome. But what about soldiers on the march, where such a convivence wasn't easily come by? Did more semi-permanent camps have places for soldiers to do their laundry? Did soldiers carry fresh replacements they could wear after awhile? For how long could a soldier expect to go without cleaning their clothes, and were there problems with clothing deteriorating?

I’m writing a book that requires frequent conversion of currency values between Indian Rs and British pounds. The various websites (not many) seem to offer very different answers. Or maybe it’s my poor calculation. Any resources that you can suggest?

How did Norway fall so quickly? I would have thought that with the mountains and bitter cold plus allied help Norway would have been able to hold out for longer. Plus considering the size and terrain of Norway it seems like it would be a slog to take it all. So how did Germany do it so quickly?

I’m interested in how the world looked at the situation in the wind up to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. It seemed as if there was a good bit of lead time as Iraq massed on the border.

I have an amalgam of somewhat related questions beyond the title, in no particular order.

I’m familiar with April Glaspie’s comments but what were other major countries views like? Was UK/France/Europe at all concerned with the way things were developing? I’ve read Glaspie was tasked with improving USA/Iraq commercial ties prior to the invasion. Where was that at the start of the crisis? Were there any serious projects they were working on prior to the start of the crisis?

I’ve seen a lot of articles stating that it was brought to Texas and the South by the Czech and German settlers but also a lot stating that it was actually African slaves who brought BBQ to Texas.

Is there accuracy to both of these claims? Did Texas history whitewash the actual origins of BBQ to discredit the slaves who brought the technique and style to Southern Texas?

I am half German myself and I’ve never heard any talk of them being great at barbecue.

Most heavy guns seem to be rated at 100-500 shots, Littorio's 15-inch at 140 EFC, Iowa's 16-inch at 290 ESR, Nelson's 16-inch around 200 rounds. I understand these are not counting every shot, but the most wear intensive shots, some of the lighter shots being counted as 0.4 or even 0.03. But considering that shells loaded to kill enemy battleships would be rated at very high wear on barrels, how sustainable was Nelson-class HMS Rodney unleashing 378 16-inch rounds on Bismarck in a single fight while the Royal Navy only had 9 reserve guns? Wouldn't the RN run out of barrels pretty quickly since just one battleship would need all 9 to replace their worn out guns? The Italians seem to have ordered only 1 extra/reserve gun for each of the Littorios.

Am I misunderstanding the barrel life and how naval guns are maintained in general?

so this question is more directed at the historians who are familiar with this game but to explain.

​

Crusader Kings 3 is a video game where the player picks a person from the time period selected in the menus, and then proceeds to look at a historically accurate map of europe at the time period, and tries to further goals, whether thats conquering entire countries and forming empires, or having massive families and dynasties, the player will play as their Heir if they have one upon their characters death, if they dont have an heir, its game over. so you're playing as the person not the nation. with all the problems that arise from that and all the rules and laws followed at the time in place, along with every other character/person in the game having their own ambitions and own goals.

​

within this, the country Ireland for example is considered the "noob" start, aka the one for absolute beginners because its so isolated and easy to take your time to work out how to play and respond and then conquer ireland and the rest of the UK as an Irish lord in the 9th century or later.

​

now obviously, Ireland did NOT conquer england and scotland and then somehow move on to attacking france or something. but in the game you can just fabricate claims on neighbours, press them, and raise levies, mercenaries and men-at-arm squads to take them and add them.

another example is one can play as King Harold Godwinson of England in the year 1066, the famous battle of Hastings of course. soon the player is invaded by William and also the vikings at similar to same times, an impossible situation that claims the Kings life, and title. but in the game you have enough tools available that you can actually repel both attacks and preserve Harolds lineage, and take the throne when he dies as King Magnus

my question, as an idiot/generally ignorant person to basic logic and knowledge, was wondering.

​

why didnt this work in real life at the time? why couldnt lords just do this? just raise their armies and unite countries and have big families like that? if Crusader Kings is so historical surely its mechanics and tools available to the player would have also been available to the real people at the real time. so then obviously either A. the people at the time didnt have the information to see this power, or B. Crusader Kings 3 is taking large liberties with how things ran at the time. so if its these, what was stopping them?

​

this question was ridiculously hard to phrase for me, and I understand if it immediatly gets removed, but my curiosity is getting the best of me.

How would they decide the rank of someone at enlistment time in the Union in the Civil War?

What kinds of things should I be doing to improve my chances at finding a job as a history major in my field, like in the area of museums, archeology and tourism? Are there any certificates I should get on the side? Would volunteering at museums be a good idea? What can I be doing right now during my undergrad so that I don't end up unemployed or flipping burgers after I graduate?

I know this is a sensitive topic as disease is used as a tool of Native American genocide denial. I’m asking though because I’ve seen a couple of articles written during Covid claiming that despite many east coast peoples having never encountered Spanish parties like De Sotos, the diseases introduced by these parties nearly “wiped out” many eastern seaboard Native communities, explaining why early English settlers found empty native settlements upon their arrival. Some writers almost make it sound like the English arrived in an entirely different continent native population wise... Does research support this?

The dropping of two nuclear bombs above japanese cities at the end of WWII is probably one of the most reknown events in history.

However, is there information on whether or not the US had more atomic bombs ready at the time and if so, were there plans to bring them to the pacific and use them as well?

What would have happened if Japan had still refused to surrender?

In the show "Young Sheldon," Sheldon befriends Tam Nguyen, a classmate whose family came to America as "boat people" and settled in Galveston in the 1970s/80s. The family then was attacked and chased out of town by the KKK. In the scene, Sheldon's parents are praising the US as a country welcoming to immigrants and then Tam says this as a smackdown - watching it it seemed kind of on the nose, but I'm willing to put that down to poor writing.

I'm curious how plausible this situation is, and more broadly what the gulf Coast Vietnamese immigrant experience was like... why did the gulf coast become a center of Vietnamese immigration, why was shrimp fishing such a common profession, e.t.c.

I know it’s a broad question given the variety of resistance groups that existed throughout the conflict. I imagine that few groups would have the means (or the desire) to accept the surrender, so our fate would be sealed.

If more specificity is needed, perhaps assume I am a private in the wehrmacht trying to surrender to members of the French Resistance. But of course would be interested in anecdotes from any other resistance forces.

So a little thought I had at work for some reason. From my little understanding, peasants in the Middle Ages were generally farmers, but it was highly seasonal, so spring/summer time was work time right?

What would they do on their “days off” during autumn and winter? Kinda just sit around and do chores?

Hello everyone !

​

I'm writing a fictional book about a Norse blacksmith in 9th Century.

Some important elements would be the descriptions of the buildings. In a small coastal village, what buildings would there be? What were the predominant building materials? How would the forge would like? Would it be made of wood or wade of stone? What about bark and turf?

The story is happening close to the lofoten islands, next to the arctic circle.

I am interested in the hunter-gatherer/semi-nomadic civilizations of southern Africa, mainly the San and nearby peoples. Is there a good book about them?

An unusual-sounding question, but I've heard conflicting information about the usage of peasant levies in medieval European militaries. In most popular history, it's generally assumed that the average medieval grunt is, for lack of better terminology, part of a mob of peasants with pointy sticks. However, I've heard it said on this forum that conscription of peasants fell out of favor by (roughly) the time of the Crusades, and I've even heard that at least one historian thought the very concept of peasant levies was made up in the modern era as pro-conscription propaganda (that being said, I haven't looked into the sources for this claim.)

In brief, what's the deal with peasant levies? Were they a thing, and if they were, has the usage of them been exaggerated?