I appreciate this may be an 'ask geneticists' question (if there is such a thing), but many accounts of the Spanish Habsburg line confidently assert that their frequent intermarriage with the Austrian branch was the probable cause of the genetic issues which culminated in the early death of Charles II of Spain and the end of the Spanish Habsburgs. My question is, why were the consequences of this only one directional? I believe the Austrian Habsburgs intermarried quite frequently too, yet apart from possessing the 'Habsburg jaw' the consequences of this consanguinity seem far less stark. Are they merely given less attention, or is there indeed a disparity of outcomes? If the latter, does that throw into question the accuracy of the prevalent Spanish narrative?

Do we know about what percentage of the British Empire's colonial revenue came from the 13 Colonies in the years before the American Revolution? I imagine that the sugar producing Caribbean colonies and the trade out of India were bigger cash cows. And how directly invested was King George in the American colonies? Did their loss hurt his personal finances in particular?

Also, how significant were the expenses of waging the war against the rebelling Americans? Were they hemorrhaging cash to keep the war going, merely an irritating nuisance, or somewhere in between? Was it necessary for the British to borrow any significant sums of money to keep the war going?

Any other information about the economics of the British side of the war would also be appreciated, thank you.

The general concensus online seems to be that they didnt react much at all yet little evidence has been shown for this claim. I understand the lack of sources surrounding the topic is also telling of the reaction but it would be great to hear more about the topic. Any response would be greatly appreciated however if you link your source that would be great.

Over the course of a few centuries many great powers attempted to invade the British Isles with some failing and others succeeding. The primary reason Britain was able to retain it's independence from continental European powers such as France and Germany was the fact that it was an island separated by a 200 km channel.

However in 1942 Channel Dash a German task force was able to sneak through the English channel in broad daylight. My question is, was invading Britain that difficult? The English Channel was frankly that not that wide and the British would need time to prep their fleets to intercept an invasion force.

I ask because their leaders seem to reflect (albeit in sensationalized form suitable for fiction) tropes reminiscent of the "Noble Savage" stereotype in Euro-American Literature, which was accepted (when not created) by some learned Euro-Americans.

For example, the fictional King Mulu tamed wild animals and used them in battle, and the fictional King Wutugu equipped his soldiers with rattan armour which was effective protection.

Edited in order to add: If you want to describe how effective rattan armour really was in battle (and the role of Nanman ethnicities in spreading its use in China), then I would appreciate that also.

A very prominent Indian historian Ramachandra Guha said in one of his recent lectures that,'contrary to popular opinion internet does not have everything.It has very little of what a historian needs.'

To what extent is it true?

I’ve read online about how the Great Plague (1643) contributed to the defeat of the Ming Dynasty, but there’s absolute no primary sources or accounts of this plague. There are many websites detailing statistics and info about the plague, but did it even exist? I can’t find any primary sources that talk about it.

Hello, I'm wondering, since it was "the high rank" people that could have a sword, did blacksmiths could have swords that they made by themselves? Or was it forbidden by any law? (I'm writing a little something, and even if it will be 100% fictional I want some things to be accurate)

Based upon my understanding, the “official” start of World War II is considered to be Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, which prompted Britain and France to officially declare war on Germany. However, the invasion of Poland was, from what I understand, a dual invasion by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union from both directions. At this point, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were ostensibly allies under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (which Hitler would of course later break and invade the Soviet Union, but never mind that now).

The agreement was, if I am understanding correctly, that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would divide Poland between the two of them, prompting the joint invasion. However, though the Soviet Union would later join the allies based on their mutual enemy in Germany, at this point it would seem that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had allied with each other to invade a neighboring country.

So, my question is, if the invasion of Poland is what prompted Britain and France to declare war on Germany, why did they not also declare war on the Soviet Union? Did they not want to engage in two wars at once, or was it more that a declaration of war against Germany had more explicit justification, given its clear violation of the Treaty of Versailles (or was it something else)?

Thanks!

Same with Princess Diana and Prince Charles. Why is it such a big importance in the Church of England even though it was specifically created to allow divorces?

These are the languages of the Germanic nations that Hitler fought with in WW2. (USA, British Empire, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway). How did he view the inhabitants of these lands. Did he deem them a fellow Germanic race or a lower class race?

I am of course wondering because of Mark Twain's claim in Life on the Mississippi: "But for the Sir Walter disease, the character of the Southerner–or Southron, according to Sir Walter’s starchier way of phrasing it– would be wholly modern, in place of modern and medieval mixed, and the South would be fully a generation further advanced than it is. It was Sir Walter that made every gentleman in the South a Major or a Colonel, or a General or a Judge, before the war; and it was he, also, that made these gentlemen value these bogus decorations. For it was he that created rank and caste down there, and also reverence for rank and caste, and pride and pleasure in them." Of course this is exaggerated for humorous effect, but I wonder to what extent.

It's pretty easy to take it for granted now that we have all sorts of crazy chemicals that we can just make in giant plants; but before that was a thing how did we make the chemicals for gunpowder? The three ingredients are charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter. Charcoal is easy to make and AFAIK was already an industry before the rise of guns in Europe, sulfur I think you can just mine out but I could be wrong, however I don't know where you get saltpeter from and I don't think it's just something you can mine out. How was it made, and in big enough quantities to supply entire armies with gunpowder?

I’ve always wondered, what happens if you’re Chinese in 1950s Montgomery? Do you use the white drinking fountain or colored?

So I know the reason that is commonly cited is the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram. While I have no doubt that these had some role in America entering the war, I want to know the real reason. The non-propaganda reason.

The explanation that America entered because the Central Powers caused the death of some Americans on ships never really made a whole lot of sense to me. You go to war with them to... avenge the dead? You send a colossal amount of men to their deaths fighting a war over a relatively small amount of citizens that died? The argument doesn't really work for me.

I know this question is probably pretty controversial, but let me know if you can answer this question for me. I'm guessing there's an economic reason behind it. There usually is.

Magic mushrooms grow everywhere and seem to be quite commonly taken for pre-Christian ceremonies all across the world.

I’d assume the people of medieval Europe, for instance, would know what these mushrooms were (or would be unexpected reminded when someone picked the wrong one).

Are there any recorded cases of people taking them on purpose?

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: Why is it that the USS Arizona gets the lions share of the attention at Pearl Harbor, when numerous battleships (Utah, Oklahoma, etc.) were also sunk on 7 December 1941?

I just did the historical walk around Ford Island, and there are numerous sites showing wrecks and locations where ships were sunk, but the USS Arizona is the showpiece, with the visitor’s center built above it, tourist visits, etc. Is there a historical basis for this? On the opposite side of the island, the USS Utah sits in fairly shallow water, with a decent amount of it above water. The memorial there wasn’t built until 1971.

In other great Europeans war like the Seven years wars not all colonies were taken from the defeated. For example, Britain offered to give back New France, but France decided to keep its Caribbean islands instead.

Why were all of Germany's overseas possessions taken? What changed?