I am french, recently went to Canada for some time and also met canadians in France, notably when there were commemoration of WW1, in Paris and in the former western front in the east of France, at the famous (for canadians) Vimy Ridge for instance.

And while I always had a great time with theses canadians, both in Canada and France, great people and all, what struck me was the really really weird conceptions pretty much all of thoses canadians had of the events in WW1.

Basically, it seemed that they thought that the british army and the british colonies, especially the british colonies like Canada, nearly single handedly won WW1, that the canadians were considered like some kind of shock troops and the best on the western front, whereas the french apparently didn't do much... And all that said with a certain kind of "pride" I must say.

And it's an opinion that you often find on reddit.

Now, the "dick mesuring contest", knowing who was the best, or the true winner in WW1 doesn't interest me at all, notably because of the european construction, and the fact that most society in western Europe have really passed the kind of awful, war mongering nationalism existing in Europe at the time of WW1.

In fact, in France, Germany or Belgium at least, WW1 isn't romanticized in any way, it isn't considered as a moment of Glory for anyone, only a gigantic slaughterhouse that destroyed millions of lives. We don't hold grudge to anyone regarding this war, and we're most of the time as much as sorry for the germans soldiers than we are for the french ones, even if Germany attacked first. In this regard, WWI is seen really differently from WW2. Furthermore, WW1 actually deeply traumatized french society and is, I think rightly, often regarded as a crucial moment where public opinion about war and the army in France really began to change, war changing from being something glorious, something that made a man, to be the worst thing that could happen anywhere to anyone, and the army becoming more of a "necessary evil" than the prestigious institution it could be before.

So not only was I suprised by the kind of "pride" canadians seemed to feel when talking about thing like Vimy Ridge, or the fact that they thought canadians were "shock troops" I was also kinda offended by the role they gave themselves and to french soldiers in this war, because it's really disrespectful to all the the people who died, or who were badly injured during this war.

I mean, there is a monument to the dead in pretty much every single cities, town or village in France. Even today, no matter where you go, you can still see the scars left by WW1.

And well, you just have to look to the casulaties.

Were there dead or injured canadians in WW1 ? Yes. Roughly between 56,000 and 65,000 deads, and nearly 150,000 military wounded. So something like 0,8% of the canadian population died.

But for France, 1,700,000 people died, and 4,300,000 were militay wounded. So nearly 5% of the french population at the time died. WW1 literally put a halt to population growth in France.

So, I never tried to dismiss what the canadians I was talking to were saying, because it's not really the kind of topic I want to have a fight about, and they always were very pleasant people.

But where does this conception of WW1 in Canada come from ? Why is it so romanticized, and why the role of Canada seem to be absolutely overplayed while the role of France considerably diminished ? I mean, it wasn't even on their territory !

By ancient, I mean anywhere from Roman to Medieval era armies, prior to the invention and widespread use of firearms. I'm fairly sure that armies rarely fought to the last man, but if that was a more common occurrence than routing, I'll be glad to be proven wrong.

Appreciate any answers I get. Thank you!

I mean like in the 1100's when life expectancy was low, did people who managed to live to 60 still look as old as 60 year-olds now of days?

So I'm reading a romance novel (I know, I know, not the best source of historically accurate material, but I try to avoid the more blatantly inaccurate ones) and one character plays a prominent part. Something about this is bothering me, and my own knowledge and attempts to answer it myself haven't been very helpful.

She is the daughter of a Lord and Lady who, though greatly in debt, still keep at least one house and staff. They are not top-tier members of society but still attend various functions and mingle with others of high social standing. The thing is, she is supposedly completely illiterate, and from the description, it sounds like the author is trying to say that she has a learning disorder, which I assume was not even a concept at the time. Other characters remark how she will never be able to keep a household if she cannot read. Apparently the family just 'gave up' trying to teacher her when she couldn't get it easily.

Exactly how common was this? I suppose I'm used to seeing depictions of this time period from authors like Austen (okay, entirely Austen), and there aren't any Austen characters I can think of who were illiterate, even though most of them were of comparatively modest means.

Who knows how many would think that personal injury lawsuits would've put an end to those crank-starters in a hurry?

When it was common to crank-start vehicles, why didn't I hear about class-action lawsuits flaring up due to the multitude of personal injuries received from handcranks kicking back to injure arms?

I'm asking this question because I learned the Prussian army was back then already disciplined and modern. Wilson intervened 35 years later against this same army.

I realize the German Unification was one step in a longer process but was there a sense of foresight in the US about a new confrontation between France and Germany? How did the US feel at the end of the 19th century about Germany potentially dominating Europe?

I know this is a bit broad, but I would imagine this question better applies to the era when states had begun to form.

Has such a concept of two states declaring their own wars on one nation over the same territory occurred?

How did this affect relations between the independent aggressors?

I'm not sure if this is more of an economics question, but the two often have a lot of overlap so here goes. In the west you often hear of stories where Communist leaders would see the overabundance of wealth in capitalist countries and be absolutely shocked. Now stories like these are kind of used as semi-propaganda to show how superior our system was, but was the discrepancy a result of different economic systems, or the fact that most of Russia is tundra and/or bad farmland?

Hi, I'm doing this speech for english on the topic "every tick of the clock creates history" I'm very interested in Polish history (also I'm Polish descended) and really want to incorporate the topic of the invasion of 1939 or just generally something about the Winged Hussars (maybe even a connection between the two) I'm sure I could find something if I looked on the internet but having someone actual take the time to type it and share their knowledge is priceless to me. So really the question is; is there an example of this topic "every tick of the clock creates history" in regard to the Invasion of Poland or Winged Hussars in general, and if not those two things just anything in Polish history would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I remember reading that 'some scientists' believed that a nuclear explosion could ignite the atmosphere (chain reaction of atomic explosions) and wipe out the whole planet. I'd like to believe that, being rational men, scientists would have disproved the possibility long before performing an experiment with such catastrophic contingency and high school textbooks only include the reference to further dramatize the nuclear testing. (Not sure if this is a better question for AskHistorians or AskScience, so XPosting it.)

i've seen threads related to the oldest confirmed year.

i want it to the day

I Imagine alot of what we see in films is just for show and to look good, so how does it compare to the real thing?

Were they like three foot long butcher knives? Or were they a lot duller?

Would you slice someone up with them, or would it be more like hacking at them with a long hatchet?