Particularly 1865-1898.

I'm a history student studying the Cold War and was wondering how Americans viewed atomic scientists or how the media portrayed them. One the one hand the atom bomb ended WWII and atomic energy was promised to provide an incredible future... But on the other, people were becoming more aware of the effects of radiation after nuclear detonations and the potential for nuclear war. Did people blame the scientists? or the government?

It is common to see past leaders and royalty referred to by their first name plus a suffix, such as "Alexander the Great", "Richard the Lionheart", "Pepin the Short", "Edward the Elder" etc. I recognize every case is different, but generally speaking where did the nicknames come from? Who chose it? Did the king/leader "approve" the nickname, or was it simply bestowed on them by others? If so, who? Were the nicknames used while the individuals were still alive or was it usually bestowed on them after they died? (Also, is there an official term for the descriptor other than "nickname"?)

Do we know anything about how early humans captured/tamed the animals that we know today as domestic species?

How old is the earliest record of domestication of animals?

Did domestication of various animal species just kind of happen as a result of human interaction or did it require effort to "befriend" cows, sheep, cats, etc.? Horses still require "breaking" or training in modern times before they'll tolerate a rider, for example.

Thanks - hope this is the right sub for this, I've been wondering about this lately.

I'm most curious about the success rate of sieges of medieval castles, before the usage of gunpowder weapons, but if you know about sieges of fortified cities in antiquity then please do chime in!

I know it can be kind of a broad question, what with all of the different armies and castles out there, so interpret it as an "in general". The median castle, stocked as a castle normally would be when they were at war, confronted by the median army with orders to take the fortification.

The only tricky part is this: no help is coming for the castle/town, and the besieging army is not being recalled for use elsewhere (I do know that your army wouldn't always be available for a long haul siege, but this army is). If the besieging army feels they must take the point by storm, it's only because the siege is becoming untenable due to starvation, harassment from sallies, losses to disease, or other such factors.

So, how many of these nondescript castles can outlast their nondescript enemies?

I'm doing a role play for Middle Eastern History, and my character is a merchant living in Izmir (Smyrna) which was heavily populated by Greeks but under Ottoman rule. He hopes one day Smyrna will once again belong to Greece. Please help.

So I'm sat here reading an old issue of the Economist and it's talking about the ongoing debate between the SNP and Westminster over what would be done to North Sea oil in the event of a yes/no answer in the Scottish independence referendum. Of course the article brings up Norway's rather insane $840bn national fund that has been created through saving some of it's oil proceeds and investing that money strategically. This is a huge sum and even for a country like Britain with a far greater population than Norway it could go a huge way to funding infrastructure, solving pension issues etc. An exact quote from this article, most likely partisan comes from the economist Gavin McCrone who stated that Britain's failure to copy Norway was 'a serious mishandling of the greatest opportunity for the economy in the last half century'.

So my question for anyone better versed in later 20th century and economic history than myself is what did Britain do with her oil wealth? Where was it spent? What benefits/negatives did it have? (I have heard past references to the £ as a petro-currency, which sounds mad in the modern day) Furthermore why was the decision made to essentially throw British oil revenues into the national budget rather than create a fund like Norways and was this the wrong decision? Was it actually 'wasted' as I rather provocatively stated in the title (as I'm partial to the Norwegian model) or was it spent well? The Norway sovereign wealth fund is a high profile and prominent example of Norway's oil wealth while I imagine a great deal of the British public are probably unaware that we are even an oil producer so I imagine this might be colouring my perception somewhat.

Cheers.

I know this is probably a dumb question, but I know that Portugal and Spain were rivals at one point in time. Were they at war with each other for an extended period of time? Or just economic rivals? How could one country survive a war against another country that has it almost entirely encircled? It seems like such a huge disadvantage.

If they weren't ever at war with one another, why didn't they go to war? Didn't they actively sink each others ships? Why did they have so much hostility? And are they still hostile? Sorry for the broad question, my girlfriend is going to Spain for two months and that got me thinking about it.

Or before really. Mostly I'm just curious how do people and government function when one day the germans suddenly annex or invade you and claim your territory as their own, or at the end of the war when borders were redrawn and territories changed or new nations were created.

What was life like for those people? How did local and regional governments function, get money, who was in charge of the police forces, what happened to the existing public officials who were now associated with a defunct state?

It boggles my mind how society could continue to function when the borders just change one day and I can only imagine lift was very difficult for the citizens caught up in this.

As a casual reader of history I've always read that the people of the Maghreb were Mediterranean (i.e. essentially white). As a student I traveled to Europe and North Africa. Many North Africans I met in France looked what I, as an American, would call "black". Many looked what I would call "Arab". In Egypt I found what looked like a true melting pot. In the coastal city of Alexandria the people were fair skinned and blue and green eyes were pretty common. In Cairo the majority looked "Arab", though Cairo is truly a global city with a wide variety of colors. In the Egyptian countryside and in the south at the Valley of the Kings the people looked "black". In Cairo I spoke with a Copt, generally about politics but also Coptic culture. He mentioned that Copts call themselves "Rem en Kemi" which translates to something like "Romans in Egypt".

My takeaway from the experience is that North Africa is a patchwork. I would like to know what peoples and cultures contributed to that patchwork? Why would a Coptic Christian tell me, in Arabic, that he is a Roman?

I understand slavery is very old in Human history. I also understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that slavery at the time was not popular or against the law in most major European countries. I'm also reasonably sure that the first waves of pilgrims did not bring slaves with them. If any of those statements are wrong please correct me.

With those statements in mind, when and where did slavery start in America. Was it at first a questionable act that ultimately forced other farmers to use their own slaves to compete in the market? I'd appreciate as much detail as can be provided, or even a good source to read up on it myself.

Slavery seems to be a popular question, i searched through a few pages and of the top section and did not see this asked already. If it's already been answered let me know and I'll delete it.

I thought that most people fighting were in the trenches, if everyone was in a bunker, how did so many people die?

Other states in the south ratified the amendment in 1933, so why did Oklahoma stay dry until 1959?

They are both central banking systems, but they seem significantly different in practice. How did they differ and why? It seems like a trivial belief, but I thought, maybe there's a reason why the Fed isn't called the 3rd national bank of the United States.

Here's a guiding question: how would central banking in the US work today if we still chartered the second national bank of the United States?

As I understand most of the senate conspired and killed Caesar, because of peculiar changes that he made and considered his rise to power as tyranny. How was Caesars death explained to the public? What happened to the conspiring senate members, were they held responsible or was this let go? What did Marc Antony do and were there any military involvement? Who did the military power go to?

Just explain as much and in depth as possible to what changes took place in Rome afterward and your opinon to wether this was a good event or made things even worse.