The Japanese were able to follow US planes back to the carrier group to learn the whereabouts. Why didn't those planes land/refuel back at Midway island?

Considering the societal subjugation of women throughout history and certainly in England, why were women allowed to inherit the throne (albeit after any brothers) and rule in their own right the same as a man from the earliest days of the monarchy? How did the men in lower station accept her authority, and how did she manage to have credibility in such a patriarchal society? For example, in Elizabethan England (1500s), Elizabeth with her political power as ruler of the country and head of state above every man seems at odds with the general societal expectations of women as "the weaker sex" under authority and dependency of her husband or male relative where even the upper class women were denied formal education and could only be tutored. What stopped the otherwise male-controlled, patriarchal, misogynistic parliament/government from passing a law prohibiting women from inheriting the throne or at least disrespecting/ignoring her orders and rule?

First of all by no means this is an alternate history question. I personally do not think, that Imperial Japan had much chance to come out on top in the pacific theater.

I'm currently reading Pacific Crucible series and I was puzzled by this question. Why was IJN so indecisive, while at the same time ironically believers of a decisive battle?

1. The third strike on pearl that never happened.
2. The many withdrawals of Nagumo's task force during Guadalcanal Campaign.
3. Battle off Samar, they did not press on to disturb you the landing, because they thought they have destroyed multiple US "fleet carriers". Whether they did or not, it won't really change the outcome of the war, though it showed the unwillingness of IJN command to take necessary risks.

After avoiding the many opportunities, they launched suicide operations that are impractical and yields little return, like Ten-go, so they can have an honorable death? It all seemed very contradictory and ironic to me.

Of course, I'm pointing all of these out in hindsight. So I'm wondering why they made such decisions. Was it the human factor? Backward bureaucracy in the command structure?

The question is prompted mostly by debates over Biblical authorship - for example, modern scholars now argue that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1 & 2 Timothy, based on textual criticism, but documents as early as the mid to late 2nd century show the early church had widely accepted them as Paul's.

What was the author intending? By attaching it to Paul, did they seek to use his authority? Is it intended to be a fictional 'conversation' between historic figures, like Plato's works?

I have heard that the Grande Armée under Napoleon was very meritocratic. How true is that statement?

As the title says, I am interested in who the Greek mercenaries consisted of. Was it poor people looking for a way of life? What about the elite? Where there women involved? Thanks in advance for all answers :)

• Markus

I think a lot of people have seen someone affirming something in the likes of “Although Hitler was clearly a terrible person, he did recover Germany’s economy and made the average german life better.” Is there any bit of truth to these kind of statements? How did this rumor become so popular?

So, im used to read analysis of the Industrial Revolution made by marxist authors, and im honestly kinda tired. I wanted to know if there are any "Pro-Industrial Revolution" authors or books that make an explicit defense of the Industrial Revolution.

From what I understand, actual titles likes "count" and "baroness" were only given to people who were the head of their family, and to their spouses.

But what about their children? How would, for example, Samuel Wood, oldest son of a baron, and his younger brother David, be addressed?

I've searched the subreddit and the last time someone answered this was 7 years ago and it wasn't very thorough. I'd like to hear what people have to say about him today, most importantly from an arab perspective.

I'm interested particularly in the 20th century and the second World War if that helps frame the answer - I know the cause was still somewhat relevant in the first decade or so of the 20th century, but were there other times a monarchy could have returned to France?

I reckon carribean pirates went extinct towards the end of the 19th century, and that they didn't write much to begin with.

So how is it so common to know how a pirate talks?

i wanna learn more about ancient egypt, but i know absolutely nothing about it. so i wanted to know if the book list is beginer friendly or is there something else i should read first?

Several years ago I've watched some Youtube video where the author mentioned that people in Middle Ages were indifferent to their offspring and the instinctual love for one's children is not as instinctual as we are led to believe.

I can't find the video and my Google fu is lacking to say the least.

The title more or less explains the question. It’s my understanding that inhabitants of Western Polynesia experienced a “lull” of >1,000 years, in which time their expansion across the oceans halted and they collectively lost the skill/technology of pottery.

I can’t seem to find many good resources besides JSTOR articles that I don’t have access to, so hoping you guys could potentially help!

TYIA.

That's something that always made me wonder, and since I'm currently writing a story set in a feudal world (I know, original /s), I thought I might as well ask: How far in the line of succession do you need to be to no longer be considered a noble? I mean, logic, as far as I'm concerned, will mean that eventually, *everyone* will have a royal/noble ancestor. How did they deal with this problem? Was there a specific cut-off point, or hell, even a law that said something along the line of: "If you're the third son of the third son of the king's cousin, you can't claim the family name of the Valois at all"?

He lost the 1984 presidential election as the Democratic nominee in forty-nine states (except his home state of Minnesota, and D.C. which - of course - isn't a state), and then he lost the Senate election in Minnesota in 2002 as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party nominee (replacing Senator Paul Wellstone after he died in a plane crash).

Is he the only person to have done this? Or was there another major party nominee in history (perhaps when the US had fewer states)?