Title says it all. Are there any documented cases of what happened to people with severe disabilities be them mental like severe autism, down syndrome etc. or physical like being unable to walk or speak.

I can't find a thread asking this if one exists so please link me it if it does. Thanks!

Is there an acceptance that there may be more incredible finds buried beneath modern Rome and London, for example, that are now lost to us due to large-scale urban development?

Alternatively, as the rate of these finds slowed over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, is there a feeling that we’ve uncovered most of what was left behind for us to find?

I am writing an essay on the assassination of Julius Caesar and am struggling to find sources about the conspiring of Caesar's assassination. Could someone help me find sources?

I'm just curious. Penny-farthings look uncomfortable and difficult to ride. They also seem very dangerous for a multitude of reasons. I'm not sure when they were manufactured/popular to ride in comparison with a standard safety bicycle or a velocipede.

But under what circumstances does this seem useful? What is the reasoning behind the front wheel - is it a pedaling ratio or something?

I was recently watching the old 90s second world war film epic saving Private Ryan. Now as we know the film centers around a squad of United States Army second rangers that are used buy a command to basically find and extract the surviving brother from a collection of brothers that were all killed largely during the fighting of the war. Real world history shows this to be a parallel from what happened following the Sullivan brothers when they were all killed when their naval ship went down. But I’m getting slightly off-topic here.

There is a seam in the early part of the film where to background GIs are approaching a pair of men wearing German uniforms. One of the men is saying something frantically in a foreign language. After trying to communicate a bit one of the GIs says that he can’t understand him and then shoots both men. He and his partner then go over to the now dead soldiers and the one who shot them asks his partner what they said. His partner then goes on to make a cruel joke of saying that he believed the soldier that was speaking to them essentially told them that he had washed for supper.

If you use close captions when watching the scene you see that the frantic soldier is speaking in Czech. Now I could be wrong because I do know that early in the war the Germans did use equipment built in Czechoslovakia. For instance the Panzer 38t was that of a Czechoslovakian design if I recall correctly. But unless I’m getting my information mixed up I don’t recall Czechoslovakia being an ally of Germany like say Romania was.

Did the Germans ever actually use fighting age individuals from other countries and essentially force them to fight for them?

I don’t know if this is even a question that falls in line with this particular group. But I can’t really think of anywhere else to post it. And since I’m currently in Facebook jail as they call it I can’t post it on a Facebook group. If anyone has any information on this I would be grateful. If not at the very least be kind enough to point me in the right direction. Thank you for your time and thank you for reading my overblown message.

I'd assume there would be a huge language barrier. Did any Americans speak Japanese to communicate with the Japanese? Or did some diplomats in Japan speak English?

I was recently looking at the copies of some of the original founding documents of the American government. When I was looking at the Bill of Rights, I noticed that the first and second articles are not the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution. Can please someone explain what exactly these articles are, if they are not considered amendments to the constitution? Thanks in advance!

Ba’athist governments took power in both Iraq and Syria in the 1960s. These two governments did not get along however, with Syria supporting military action against Iraq in both the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars. So why was there so much tension between Ba’athist Syria and Iraq?

I'm specifically referring to battles where people were not using guns.

After seeing how tired boxers and MMA fighters get after Boxing for twenty minutes or less, how long realistically would a regular soldier be able to swing a sword?

Especially with all the armor on, the adrenaline, and the weight of whatever weapon they were carrying, I can't image battles lasting longer than an hour? Everyone would be too tired to move, except maybe a few incredibly fit people.

Even with the rotating of soldiers in and out, it sounds incredibly tiring.

I just watched that film Denial, and after looking up David Irving's name I found that he was once a semi-respectable historian. Now I have two questions relating to him, and holocaust denial in general.

The first is: How could anyone have found anything Irving said to be even remotely plausible in the first place? Considering not only all the eye witnesses that the Holocaust happened (which I the film showed him to dismiss as liars) but what about those who were employed in the German death machine who admitted to it? He must have been aware of the Eichmann trial yes? As far as I'm aware, Eichmann's defense wasn't that he hadn't committed these actions, he admitted that he had participated in mass killings because he was 'forced to.'

Someone one must have asked him 'David, come on. Do you think Eichmann was lying about participating in genociding civilians?'

Don't mistake me, I'm not suggesting that Irving's theory is plausible. But this was before the whole 'post-fact' hell we find ourselves in now. How did this ever get off the ground?

Second: One of the things I've learnt about the Nazis is the constant use of euphemisms, and then the Nazi's own Special Action 1005 wherein they tried to erase all evidence that the genocide had happened, including destroying the camp at Treblinka.

The 'weaker' version of Holocaust denial I've seen is that 'it may have happened, but if so Hitler either tried to stop it or didn't know about it.' First, I find it very difficult to imagine that such a massive enterprise was going on in a fascist empire and the fascist dictator with ultimate power didn't know anything about it, but let's say we were entertaining the convoluted conspiracy theory:

Now given those above practices of euphemisms, the eraser of evidence, and the very practice of leaders having 'plausible deniability' while their lackeys (in this case Himmler, Heydrich, etc) do we have any documents or other kinds of evidence that directly, and necessarily, with no room for doubt, link Adolf Hitler to the Holocaust?

>Conchobar mac Nessa, the king of Ulster, had the "right of the first night" over all marriages of his subjects. He was afraid of Cú Chulainn's reaction if he exercised it in this case, but would lose his authority if he didn't. A solution was found - Conchobar would sleep with Emer on the night of the wedding, but Cathbad the druid would sleep between them.

I'm writing a story where I'm adapting Irish myths and folklore to have the characters behave in believable and more historically accurate ways.

So my question is, is it realistic that a King would actually sleep with the brides of his subject? Would he just sleep alongside them? I'm assuming that sleeping = sex.

I've seen this "Right of The First Night" in lots of places now, and I'm wondering how historically accurate it is.

I have been reading into both Chinese and Cambodian history. I am currently trying to understand where and how the CCP's historical narratives differ with other countries' published history books. As a result, I have become curious about this specific subject. I have researched as best I can, but I am limited by language (in)ability and lack of mainland-published books where I am located. If you are able to provide a source to any information you provide I would be very grateful.

​

My understanding is that the CCP has recognised that there were many deaths, but I cannot find out whether they:

A: Recognise the government of the time's financing of the KR (as many other countries do)
B: Recognise that what occurred was explicitly a genocide enacted by Cambodian government of the time.

Could anyone with a bit of knowledge (not just machine-translating Baidu pages) please tell me how far this is available as information in the mainland? Alternatively, if anyone already well-versed in this area could provide examples of officials or public figures speaking on this history, I would be very interested in this.

​

Please note: This is specifically about how mainland government engages with or has responded to these events. This is not an invitation to speculate or for denialism***.*** Thank you for reading.

This was the first time I ever heard about an artist and a colorer. I had always assumed that anyone in this practice would aquire both skills.

Hi, everyone. Sorry, on a bit of a kick of Russian history lately, was recently introduced to the writings of Turgenev. I notice, White general from the civil war, Anton Denikin, was the son of a serf turned soldier who had been drafted for 25 years of service, as was the custom, but finished his army career as a major.

I also note the character of General Epanchin in The Idiot is described thusly: " He had made himself indispensable in several quarters, amongst others in his department of the government; and yet it was a known fact that Fedor Ivanovitch Epanchin was a man of no education whatever, and had absolutely risen from the ranks."

Further, there was some Russian musician, I believe, I can't think of who now, but looking at his wikipedia page a while ago was from a minor noble family that was started by an ancestor who rose to officer rank in the Russian army.

I wondered, 1. how common was it for talented NCOs to rise to officer rank in the Imperial army, and 2. was Imperial Russia unique in this system?

I'm familiar with the British system of sale of commissions, until the 1871 Cardwell Reforms, but it seems with the exception of times of severe fighting like the world wars, most of the officers still came from the moneyed class who could afford education. What was the process then like in pre-1861 Russia in turning serf conscripts into officers? And I understand Peter's table of ranks granted nobility status to people who rose to a certain level in the military or civil service, so were there many noble families in the Russian empire who began through conscripted serfs?

Also what was the tone towards people of Japanese, German or Italian heritage at the time?

An excerpt from The epic of Gilgamesh reads as follows:

In those days, in those distant days, in those nights, in those remote nights, in those years, in those distant years; in days of yore, when the necessary things had been brought into manifest existence, in days of yore, when the necessary things had been for the first time properly cared for, when bread had been tasted for the first time in the shrines of the Land, when the ovens of the Land had been made to work, when the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens, when the fame of mankind had been established

The mention of the first bread got me wondering if these people had an idea of the time before bread and the agricultural revolution. Is there anything we can confidently call an allusion to the age before the first civilizations? Was anything carried over, such as oral traditions?

At the time of the Revolution, Great Britain had many more colonies in North America than the 13 that revolted and became the United States. As I understand it there were no special political or economic ties between these 13 that did not exist more broadly across all of the colonies (and in fact this lack of cross-colonial identity was a major problem for the Revolution and the early United States). Indeed, it seems to me like the economic links between New York and the Caribbean were much stronger than those between New York and, say, Georgia or the Carolinas.

I have heard it explained that the Canadian colonies did not join the Revolution because the primarily French Catholic character of Quebec separated them from their Protestant neighbors in New England, and the other colonies in Canada were too sparsely populated for a rebellion to succeed.

Fair enough, but that doesn't explain why the Caribbean colonies-- with their strong economic ties to the merchant cities of the Mid-Atlantic and New England-- didn't join the Revolution or become part of the United States after independence. I wondered if the Caribbean colonies' deeper reliance on slavery or more agrarian character might have made the difference, but in that case, wouldn't the same arguments have applied to the southern colonies on the continent? Why is Georgia one of the 13 original states, but not Jamaica or Bermuda?

I just finished "Mussolini" by Nichilas Farrel and it says that Italy wanted to ally with France and the UK but they didnt want to, but it is bit clear to me why, it says that relations between Italy and UK weren't good following sanctions for the Ethiopian war but that doesn't seem to make sense if such an alliance was beneficial to both of them why not make it?

Whenever Nazi genocide is mentioned it’s seemingly always in reference to the Jews killed. This does make sense as they were the biggest Nazi target, the group with the highest genocidal death toll and the group with the largest percent of their population destroyed. However, it is still strange that the other ethnic groups that also had considerably high death tolls are seldom mentioned at all. When I learned about WWII in school, the other groups the Nazis victimized were mentioned very briefly and grouped all together. We didn’t go into nearly as much detail about their terrible treatment as to the treatment of the Jews, although they were often persecuted in the same way. Whenever there is online discussion about the Nazis it’s always about the Jews and I haven’t seen many articles about the other victims of the Nazis either. In fact, the one victimized group I do see mentioned apart from the Jews is homosexuals even though compared to ethnic-Poles, Slavs, and Romas they weren’t victimized nearly as much. So why are these other groups never mentioned? Is it because anti-semitism and homophobia are generally seen as bigger problems in modern society and the Nazi genocides are brought up mostly to warn of the dangers of these still held sentiments?

I am doing some fictional creative writing and got some questions regarding air warfare during WW2.

Would appreciate any insight you guys could provide.

1. Did air pilots use radios or other means of communication?
2. If a plane was damaged, was it possible for the pilot to survive? Did they have some ejection mechanism implemented or something along those lines?
3. How did the targeting systems work? Did they have a trigger etc.?
4. Were there any planes present as support during Omaha Beach landing? I assume some were, surely. I am interested in any air battles at the end of the war, relatively close to Berlin.

I want to have a dogfight passage in which a pilot crashes in an enemy territory and then stumbles upon a certain object, a secret weapon of sorts if you will.

Thanks!

Hello, I'm a freshman in college and I have a passion for studying history. While I've taken an AP US and AP Euro course, I've also delved into other pockets of the world, collecting good resources for a study on China, Japan and Rome. But there is one area of western history that still troubles me; the period from the fall of Rome to where my European course started which is around the renaissance. While I have a very brief overview of the subject, I would love to cover it as in depth as some of my other AP courses(Which usually give a general overview of the period with anaylsis on economic, political and social effects on society). I'm looking for a series of books that cover western Europe, Eastern Rome, and information on the Middle east and Arabic people. I understand this is a nearly impossible task for one book, but I wouldn't mind a series of books or at least a guideline to what I should be looking for. Also In general I wonder how Historians select their sources or do further reading when they themselves are interested in learning about a new period/part of the world. Any help or guidance would be great appreciated!

It seems that "special forces" just sort of cropped up in WWII during the U.S., sort of - Army "Rangers" had been around for a bit, which were just elite infantry. The Italians and British seemed to have highly-trained "frogmen" which seemed to be the predecessors of groups like the US Navy SEALs.

Then, all of the sudden, sometime in the 50's and 60's, we had extremely intelligent, elite teams of specialists who would drop into "hostile" territory and set up resistance groups, notably in Africa and South-Eastern Asia. Their medics were basically surgeons, and each of them seemed to basically be an army in their own right - You'd drop a small team of budding linguists into a region and have a small army weeks later.

They seemed to exist to counter Communist forces who did roughly the same thing - Che Guevara showed up in Bolivia and randomly made a force of 50 people, with basically no support, and bloodied the noses of elite, US-trained Bolivian Rangers before they went down, and he did the same in Africa. The Spetsnaz and other elite troops in the Warsaw Pact seemed to do something similar.

Where did these guys come from? Who created them?

The quote that made me wonder this was this one by Herma of Aeschylus, “"Even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God".

I’ve heard similar usage of a singular “God” from other ancient pre-Christianity figures.

Is this referring to the divine logos? The concept of divinity itself?