Once the Declaration of Independence was formally signed in 1776, how were the British informed? Did a copy get handed over to some local British official in the Colonies? Or was it hand carried and delivered to someone in person in England? Who was responsible for handing it over? Did anything happen to them?

In short, what were the circumstances of the British learning that their colonies in North America had formally declared independence?

Maybe this is super ignorant but my understanding of the Cold War mostly comes from movies and pop culture and it seems to involve America and the USSR flexing on each other.

I know there were some wars in Vietnam and Korea that were about ideology, was this the same in Germany? And why was Germany important and not someother European country?

I am mostly interested in learning about the beginings of the Cold war and how Germany became such a central part.

Thanks :)

In the 1892 Governor's Island US Rifle Competition, the United States Army chose the Krag-Jørgensen rifle over the Lee Enfield and Mauser, the other two runner ups, claiming the Krag-Jørgensen's unique magazine would prevent the wasting of ammunition from soldiers. Was this truly the only reasoning behind this decision? Did the Krag have other perks the other rifles didn't, or was there any shady business happening behind the scenes?

This is completely subjective and could be selection bias but to me it seems like every US American I talk to has learned all about the tactics and procedures of some battles. They can give you a pretty exact replay (depending on how much they remember) of important battles like Gettysburg or D-Day.

In Germany, we've never discussed any battle tactics in class. We concentrated far more on the circumstances of the war, what it meant for the people, how it got started and how it was resolved.

Was it always like that in both countries and if not, when did they switch to this?

Optional question: do you think widespread knowledge of the proceedings of some battles is useful or useless/good or bad?

I have often heard that when we speak of St. Patrick driving the "snakes" out of Ireland, we are not talking about the limbless reptile. Rather, the "snakes" are the practitioners of pre-Christian, native Irish religion. Druidism comes to mind, but I've no idea if that would be an accurate description of it.

From where does this idea come from? Any truth to it? If so, it seems a little anti-Irish, really. St. Patrick was no Irishmen, and he came in and did away with the native culture.

I am interested in the role the English government played in the Irish famine. I see a lot of assumptions by some individuals that the English could have done much more to help the Irish during the famine, but instead did nothing or even did things that may have exacerbated the suffering of the Irish during these years. Granted, the English are not responsible for the potato famine, but what is the general view of their role or lack thereof during the potato famine? Many who desire for the English to no longer have a presence in Ireland will outright state that the blood of those who died during the famine is on the hands of the English government. Were the English able to somehow "weaponize" the famine to achieve an ends, in any capacity, in Ireland?

Just quick read it says Arab traders in the 13th century. But how did it actually get to the point where the large majority all accepted a brand new idea? I can’t imagine trying to sell a religion so 80+% of the population ends up accepting it to be an easy task

When I think about history, I often think about the vast differences in the quality of life that we enjoy today that past civilizations didn't have the luxury of. One of the examples of this that haunts me is scabies. Aristotle refers to it as "lice of the flesh" and its been known for at least 3000 years. Its one of the first diseases where the cause was actually identified. But both of the treatments used today were only developed in the 1970s.

What did people used to do for diseases like this? Would they just live with them for the rest of their lives? It was also called the 7 year itch. Did it just go away on its own eventually?

Note: Reposting due to no answer within a three day period.

📷

So I'm doing a bit of looking into the treasure fleet as I have an interest in the 18th century, and a few things came to my attention. Spain of course was one of, if not the richest European nation at the time due to the massive gold reserves they uncovered since the 16th century, which I imagined may have lead to hyper-inflation by the 1700s, would this be correct?

Secondly, just how much money would have been lost, are there estimates as to how much the fleet was carrying? And how much of an impact would this have had on Spain economically at the time?

My third and final question. How big of a news event was this? Was it something that would've been seen as a global catastrophe for Spain? Similar to 9/11 back in 2001?

Many thanks for any answers!

I have recently been doing modern history as a subject selection in school. I have one more year until I finish with this unit being part of my end tests. I want to learn more and understand pre WW1 incidents etc, the main one we're learning right now is Otto von Bismarck and his association with Prussia. Could someone recommend any books that I could read? Some that would really get me up to scratch with modern history 1900-1950ish. Any help is appreciated, thanks!

With chainmail/ mail and plate armor being introduced to combat, how do medieval soldiers even kill each other? I know they can still kill armored opponent like snapping their necks, using spears, blunt force objects, etc. But the most used weapon in the middle ages is the sword. So how do knights equipped with swords penetrate armor? Not even sharp swords like Katanas can cut through it. My first guess is that they keep bonking people at the head since it still hurts even when using helmets. Im no armor expert, so its up to you guys.

While paper is still used, its usage is decreasing. While we're leaving a boatload of archeological remains in terms of infrastructure, the amount of literary data we're leaving physically is decreasing. Let's say something turns our modern digital media useless, would future historians be able to use our literary sources to build a picture of our political (to say one example of where literary sources are very useful) history? If so, how accurately?

Not to take anything away from his accomplishments, but, was AC electricity going to be invented sooner or later and he just happened to be the one to do it or is it possible we still wouldn't have it if not for him?