I've been to several seminar talks given by historians, and the norm seems to be to read your paper, perhaps with an occasional comment added in the middle. Usually even visual aids are not used. This seems to make for a boring and hard-to-follow talk at least for non-historians like myself, and after such talks I often hear other non-historians complaining about this format. This does not seem to be the norm in other fields, and I think this would be quite frowned upon if done in many scientific communities, although, of course, a scientific paper is very different from an historical one. Occasionally, there is a talk where the historian is very passionate and does not read off of a paper, I tend to find these much more compelling. So why do historians (and perhaps others in the humanities) prefer the read-your-paper-aloud method?

I once heard or read that the women's march upon Versailles was instigated by the proliferation of rumours that the royals were hoarding grain. Was this actually true?

Apparently my girlfriend, a newly minted yoga teacher, encountered a supposition that in the time before biblical mention, Jesus travelled and perhaps learned from wizened teachers outside of his native culture.

I'm only interested in whether there is mention or implication; I don't expect consensus :)

Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Romania and Belgium, to name a few, all have very distinctive tricolour patterns as national flags. How did this commonality emerge and why weren't more unique designs used instead?

EDIT: To clarify this question, is it just a coincidence that so many European nations chose this style for their national flag? Why and When did this trend become so common across the entire continent?

To add to the above list: Russia, Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Armenia, among others.

How does history explain such a common design?

I have to do a report for my Sergeants on why the thickness of the bloodstripe on the trouser is different on a Generals, Officers and NCOs uniform. As well as why the trousers of the generals in the United States Marine Corps are black instead of blue. I've looked everywhere but have come up empty. Any help would be appreciated.

Okay, a little context. In games like Crusader Kings and Europa Unniversalis, you can send someone to a country to try and fabricate a claim on a province. Once the claim is fabricated, you can use that as an excuse for war.

So, I was wondering whether or not this is just a mechanic or if it actually happened in the past.

I know the Nazi's had business relations with IBM's subsidiary Dehomag, but I was wondering more generally if the Nazis were aware of Turning's theoretical mathematics and the beginnings of computer science.

What past events shaped Norway into its current spoon-like shape?

Basically what would a completely objective observer say if they looked at the line of succession? Would they deem the French kings legitimate or the English?

The US directly fought against both Vietnam and Korea, but why not China? It seems like defeating Mao would be a lot more important given the size of China.

In several movies, and other fiction, there are often scenes where one army shoots several arrows into the air, which fall like an entire shower of arrows onto their opponents. However, I don't get few things in relation to this: *)If one archer can only send one arrow at one time, to get a devastating dense cloud of arrows would have required too many archers *)How did they prevent the arrows from injuring their own? *)Could the arrows go far enough to be able to be a useful defense mechanism via such a cloud of arrows.

All in all, did such things ever actually take place?

During the 1920s, many famous Americans (such as F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway) went to Paris. Did Americans in America see these expats as "unAmerican" as they might been seen, today?

I am specifically trying to find out what they called their rivers? what did the language evolve into?

The Romans have always seemed to have more in common with the Phoenicians and Egyptians than non-Mediterranean European cultures, in terms of clothing, art, government, and military. However, they had a concept of Europe and Asia, as separated by the Bosphorus. Was this a strictly geographic difference, or did the Romans (of any period) see themselves as European, along with Germans and Greeks, and in contrast with the Arabs, Egyptians, etc.?

If not, when did the European identity emerge?

Yes I just watched 300...

But it still stands, what would a Roman or Greek army do to train their bodies for war?

So I was reading a book (Tripwire by Lee Childs, if anyone is interested) and there is a passage in it when the characters are talking about the war in Vietnam and the fact that the quality of soldiers decreased as time went on.

The section reads;

Even if you signed up again right away it was nine months minimum before you got back, sometimes a whole year. Then you got back and you figured the place had gone to shit while you were away. You figured it had gotten sloppy and harassed. Facilities you'd built would be all falling down, trenches you'd dug against the mortars would be half full of water, trees you'd cleared away from the helicopter parking would be all sprouting up again. You'd feel your little domain had been ruined by a bunch of know-nothing idiots while you were gone. It made you angry and depressed. And generally it was true. The whole 'Nam thing went steadily downhill, right out of control. The quality of the personnel just got worse and worse. (p.279)

I was just wondering if this was true? Does the 'quality' of soldier get worse as a war drags out? I'm assuming that some of this belief comes from the fact the volunteers or career soldiers were the first ones to go fight, and are then replaced by inexperienced or reluctant conscripts. I've noticed similar arguments put forward in other films and books for other conflicts and wars (like Black Hawk Down, Band of Brothers, Battle of Britain etc) so I was just wondering if there is any truth in it? Is there any factual evidence that supports such claims for any modern wars?

(And yes I know 'quality' is a difficult term to use but I don't really know how else to phrase the question!)

Thank you in advance!