I know life expectancy is not guaranteed. Some people just lived longer than others, but it seems like some kings lived more than double the average life expectancy of their time. Is there any reason to this? Were they just lucky or is there a historical reason for this?

I'll try to give an example. Let's say there's a king in 13th century England. He lives to be 80. The average life expectancy of that time was around 30-40 right? Why does it seem as if the kings lived longer? Were they protected more from disease and hunger because of spending time in the castle and not spending his entire life working in horrible conditions?

I remember nearly everything about this person with the exception of his name. He saved dozens of lives and would work through the night in the heat of combat, yet it turned out he learned everything on the fly and was just a man who kept leaping from alias to alias. Anyone know? Anyone know of anyone similar?

My History Professor treats this book as Gospel. I've found it an interesting read and seeing as it is fairly popular--I'm inclined to assume many of you have read it. Are there any criticisms you guys would have of "A People's History of the United States"?

We've all seen the Hollywood movies where a smart-mouthed reporter or gangster or Lois Lane or whatever is speaking at 90-miles-an-hour. All of the dialogue on those old comedies is lightning fast. Can any historian definitively answer if this was just a hackneyed acting style from the vaudeville days or were Americans just ripped silly on amphetamines?

In a US Navy manual it asked a question "Which country was the first one to recognize America's Stars and Stripes?". The answer being France.

Anyway, I read a book about the history of Islam in America, and it said that Morocco was the first nation to recognize the US as a nation. I googled the Morocco thing, and it seems to be correct.

Just how does all this stuff work on the international level? I am sure its based on the choice of words.

We're supposed to base it off of Ammianus Marcellinus and Tacitus, but does anyone know of any good secondary sources that would be worth a look? Additionally, should I stick to Tacitus' Annals, or are his other books worth a look?

These questions come from looking through my own family photos. It seems like many photos are one off with no more from that event. Were there no rolls of film? Who was taking pictures - adults/children/wealthy/poor? I'm confused by the only two pictures of my grandfather as a child Who was developing pictures? Did you get back your negatives (we only have one pre-1950s)? For a more specific time period, we have lots of photos from my grandfather from WWII. Some are professional and some are not. Where were soldiers getting their film developed? How common was it for enlisted men to have cameras?
I hope I'm not asking about too big a subject. Thanks for your time.

We know all of the bad things he did, as they are very documented and taught in our school system. I am curious though as to the good things he did and specifically how he got into power.

If you're curious as to why I'm doing this, it's for an informational speech I have to give and I thought this would be an interesting topic.

Also, since I'm doing this for a speech I need sources, so if you have any sources it'd be good if you can include them. I want to make it clear though that I am NOT fishing for free sources/info without having to do my own research, I will still be doing research regardless of what is contributed here. I just figured that I'd ask the wise people of Reddit as well.

Thank you very much for your input!

I am 25, and have wisdom teeth poping up. Most days its fine, but once in a while they will become very painful for a few days, to a week at a time. I dont want to get them removed, because it seems like they were meant to be. I mean 2000 years ago, im pretty sure people just dealt with it. Am I wrong in believing that?

I am currently researching for and writing a paper on the Syrian conflict. I need sources (no websites) for causes of the war. Can I get some recommendations on historical, demographical, political and religious sources that would help along the way? Even though the actual conflict is current I understand that factors for this are long in the making. I will be cross-posting this for current sources. I ONLY want sources that would not violate the 20 year rule.

That seems like an aweful waste of lives. How did battles even take place? Were they arranged? Who shoots first? Did they even attempt to find cover?

That's an impossible question I understand, so let me explain.

On tv shows and in paintings and such nobles are always so pristine and clean and have nice hair / teeth. Obviously there's some exaggeration, but how much? Would there hair be clean by our shower-every-day standards, or would they appear 'greasy'? Would there skin be that clean, or would they have spots of dirt all over them, like they had just played in some mud? Obviously there's differences between people, so on average is fine. Basically I'm wondering if their hygiene would be up to snuff by todays standards.

And what about peasants? They would stand out in a crowd today, even if we put them in nice clothes, right? But how much? Would they look homeless, or would they be worse?

I understand that it's kind of impossible to answer these questions, but it's something that's always bothered me. Any information at all is appreciated, and it's my first post here so I hope this isn't breaking any rules! (I read them and the FAQ, but you never know)

Jefferson's Monticello was one of the earlier Neo-Classical buildings in America. Considering how unimpressive American architecture was before this point, where would have found builders with the talent to create perfect Doric columns, and other elements that would have been totally unfamiliar to the western hemisphere?

Where these specialists? Were they brought from other parts of the world?

When discussing China's one-child policy, it seems the discussion usually revolves around the human rights violations and the dilemma of daughters, but I'm more curious about the cause. After watching a documentary and reading about Nanking, it seems the hit to the male population was enormous post WW2. Besides a cultural and economic favor for sons, was there also enough of a population imbalance for this to play a factor?

Edit: Loss as in human loss, not losing the war.

I know this is probably a common question, but I was thinking about it the other day. What happened in Germany that led to the Nazis seizing power? The Treaty of Versailles is not wholly satisfying to me as an answer, as i get the impression there's probably some deep-seated cultural dynamics that also facilitated the Nazi rise to power and subsequent stranglehold on that power.

I'm wondering if there really were any reasons for the Nazi takeover that go back further than the First World War. Hope someone can answer my question!

Was it largely to do with the rise of competitive devaluations? Or did it have more to do with problems of reciprocal trust and commitment to exchange rates? Or was it due to other factors inherent in the international monetary regime at the time?