Specifically, how did pre-industrial societies adapt in their armor, arms, and practices to mitigate the problems of heavy rainfall? Are there any examples of armor or equipment designed to deflect rain or deal with high humidity environments generally?

I’ve just purchased it, and I’m fascinated by the man, but I don’t know how much has changed in the scholarship over the last 95 years.

The Nazis were of course, without need to say so, among some of the most evil people to ever live, but I can't help but ask myself, why did they choose the greater of two evils?

Why did they choose to kill? Just so many people? On an industrial scale, I just can't understand it, it's, incalculably unfathomable and shocking how and why a person or group of people could be so evil.

Edit, apologies, my question was based on a faulty premise, the Madagascar plan would have been just as lethal as what the Nazis ended up doing, Reddit mods I shall delete upon request if you deem it necessary.

I read the first coin minted in Egypt was 360 BC by Egyptian rebels against Persia. Coins were invented in 650 BC in Lydia.

In the intervening period the Greeks were making drachmas and the Persians making darics.

Presumably during this period (650-360 BC) the ancient Egyptians were using foreign coin?

" The political objective of the assassination was to free Bosnia and Herzegovina of Austria-Hungarian rule and establish a common South Slav ("Yugoslav") state. "

I don't understand how an assassination would help establish a state. Can anyone explain?

Medieval and beyond combat appears especially brutal, maybe even more before the advent of plate armor. Being an archer, at least at face value, seems like it would have kept you somewhat safer because you're not guaranteed a position in the melee.

Was this a coveted position in different armies, and how did one get the chance to be an archer as opposed to an infantryman?

Many modern, Western cults that are obvious scams imitate Christianity in that their leader claims to be the son of God, God himself, or both. I'm curious how the leaders of these schemes gained followers at the time. Were there even any "scam cults" at all at the time, or did most every religious leader (apart from god-kings) truly believe in their beliefs?

Last night I was watching a "Lucy Worsley Investigates" on the Black Death. To humanize the event, she followed a family (using the Court Records of the time), and specifically a woman within the family.

Before the plague, the woman was fined for an out-of-wedlock birth, and then married off not long after. During the plague, all the woman's male relatives died, as did her husband. After, she inherited all their land, and lived into her 60s, never marrying again. It was presented as kind of a "she started on bottom and ended up on top!" type of narrative.

I was left wondering how "scandalous" the woman's out-of-wedlock birth was. Obviously it's something discouraged (hence the fine), but in her community of approximately 1,200 people (pre-pandemic), would this have been something that happened multiple times a year? Once a year? Once every few years?

(I am also assuming the rate of out-of-wedlock births would be rather lower than out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and that if the mother was married between conception and birth it was considered acceptable and not fined. Is this a valid assumption?)

I was at a wedding this weekend at the Pennsyvania Academy of Fine Arts. There's an outstanding 16'x10' painting of Christ before a rabbi and a mass of people being rejected and turned over to Pontius Pilate. I know the general bible story.

Here's my question. This paint is huge. If you look at the dates, Benjamin West was 80 when he painted. I could not attempt to do something that size due to a lot of logistical limitations.

It raises the questions:

• Where did he get the canvas for this? (My guess, sailmakers?)
• How did he paint this? Wall of a barn with scaffolding? A giant floor in sections?
• How did he light this to paint it? This is not long after the revolutionary war. I'm thinking candles or oil lamps.
• There are 93 (my count) portraits in this painting. I'm wondering if anyone has identified a self-portrait.
• Did he have a bunch of (young) assistants painting sections?
• This painting was taken from place to place as a backdrop to speeches. Rolled? Folded?
• And finally, it's in great condition abet the size makes it impossible to view anything above eye level closely. Has this painting spent a bunch of time in restoration?

Thanks!

The Jutes are oft overlooked when talking about the Germanic settlement of England, but they hailed from Denmark proper just as the Viking invaders did. Additionally, they were directly adjacent to Wessex, so were there strained relations or fears that they might ally with the Danes? Were they considered fellow countrymen?

Partition of India is very bloody, so is Pakistan's suppression of East Pakistan. Here comes the questions:

1. Why was Bangladesh given to Pakistan in the first place? Didn't the British know in the beginning that Pakistan could not rule it properly (owing to ethnic and geographic problems)?
2. What was Britain's role and goal in the Partition? The British knew India could not be kept as imperial possession anyway, so what interest did they want to secure in this partition? Was it their major goal to avoid ethnic and religious wars (which seemed inevitable despite best efforts)?

Australia has 7 external territories (all small island groups), 6 of which were transferred from the UK to Australia after Australian independence in 1901:

1. Norfolk Island in 1914
2. Australian Antarctic Territory in 1933
3. Ashmore and Cartier Islands in 1934
4. Heard Island and McDonald Islands in 1947
5. Cocos (Keeling) Islands in 1955
6. Christmas Island in 1958

All of these seem to have been willingly offered by the UK to Australia. Why would the UK willingly give up so much land? My first assumption was that the territories were too far away to be viable, but that can't be the sole explanation because:

1. The UK has kept far more remote and unproductive colonies to this day (e.g. St. Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha; Pitcairn Islands; and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands).
2. Specifically for Antarctica, the UK kept part of their claim (British Antarctic Territory) implying that they found it useful, but then for some reason decided to cede some of it to Australia (today called the Australian Antarctic Territory)

you see, I've been doing some little project, and i need some information sources for 2 themes:

1. Teutonic Order in Eastern Europe
2. Beginning of Polish kingdom (900 ABC - ...)

I'll be very grateful

I've read some commentary on this topic suggesting that many, if not most, Union soldiers were motivated to fight in the Civil War because they wanted to end slavery. But this analysis doesn't entirely make sense to me when considering the Draft Riots, in which Black people suffered violent reprisals from people who were being forced to fight ostensibly to end slavery; the high number of Northern white working class votes for Horatio Seymour in 1868; and the general prevailing racial attitudes toward Black people in the North and West. Was the motivation based more on economic factors from a "free soil" perspective to end competition from enslaved labor, or were they actually motivated by moral reasons to end slavery?

I know both straight and curved swords were used everywhere, but it seems that generally Europeans favored straights swords while Asia went with curved swords. Even the katana is slightly curved.

From Walt Disney's "Main Street USA," to the collective french reminiscing of the "Belle Epoque," is there any sociological consensus on the rose-tinted view of the late 19th century?

From where did it emerge? When did it emerge? And when did it disappear?