I know that one of the reasons, at least formally, for the invasion of Egypt was to 'link up' with Indian Princes aligned against the English and drive them out of the continent, but exactly how did the French intend to get there (if it was even thought about)? Overland through the Ottomans and Persia and hope the Persians were friendly? Conquer them too? Or did they intend to somehow build a fleet on the opposite side of the Suez? The only other solution I can think of is an early Suez Canal but that would take a considerable amount of time.

This interests me a lot, thanks for any answers!

What are the methods Peron used to stay in power of Argentina?

I don’t really get it. Early guns seem horrible. Inaccurate, no long range ability, long reloads, unusable in wet conditions.

I understand why guns became the weapons for most soldiers because in comparison to a sword or a bow they require much less training. However; why didn’t bows stay around WITH muskets?

I mean; Oda Nobunaga had this three volley system. Where below his musketmen he would have archers. So while the muskets reloaded, the archers would fire over them to keep the death rate up.

Why didn’t this happen with muskets elsewhere, and last for long periods of time? Like until rifles. Stuff like having large formations of volley fire muskets like we saw, AND trained archers in the back.

Why not?

I'm curious to learn more about the crusades, due to their influence on the history of medieval Europe. Unfortunately, this topic in particular is basically a proverbial landmine of Islamophobia and white supremacy. How do I navigate this topic without being duped by the propaganda that festers around it?

It is a bit odd that the Nazis are infamous for a list of actions that they did that are now frowned upon as people who were supportive to the ideals of fascism - genocide, militarism, censorship, hard control of human rights and so on - they also gave a lot of fascination to writers on several works of fiction and for people who write history books.

For example, one instantly recognisable feature of an archetypal Nazi is that of a Nazi officer with clean and smart uniform where you would find in many works of fiction as characters who are defined as highly disciplined.

Or another feature is their weaponry and arsenal like the many weapons that they developed in a short period of time and some of these weapons are still revered by weapons enthusiasts and experts like the MP40 sub machine gun, the STG 44 (which is technically the first fully automatic assault rifle), the Tiger and Panther tanks, the development of the largest cannon ever built, the first prototype of the first jet, the concept of Wonder Weapons and so on.

And not to mention the other things that they developed that required sophistication like the Blitzkrieg tactic and the development of certain branches in government like there was a branch that focused on propaganda, and one for the SS and so on.

These portrayals of the Nazis are ones where they were associated with efficiency and well-organised teamwork which also slightly similar to the more modern stereotypical portrayal of the German people when it comes to efficiency and effectiveness, particularly when engineering is involved.

But how accurate is this portrayal especially when compared to the drawbacks, oversight and failures that historians have found like the massive focus on propaganda during the entirety of the Nazi rule, or the waste of resources on concentration camps and the use of resources on projects that were never finished like Die Riese, or the failure of Operation Sealion and the failure of conquering the USSR and so on?

After King Andrew II of Hungary gained the services of the Teutons in 1211 C.E., they went in Transylvania and stayed there until 1225 C.E.. What happened?

What were their numbers (Knights, Footmen and Servants)? How did they lose? Where were they stationed at? How long did they travel from Jerusalem? Which were the 5 castles they built?

I have now followed some of the research prompted by some answers to my question. Because of what I learned, I'd like to amend my question and here's why:

Clothes are and were expensive so why did so many men have Mohawk costumes available? Specifically Mohawk. People in Boston didn't wear them in their daily lives.

Then I discovered that Adams and Hancock were tea smugglers. Not only that, the British had lowered the price of tea so that it was driving smugglers out of business.

Tea smugglers might have used Mohawk apparel at night in their business of evading British patrol boats, who would be loathe to forcing their way onto an ally's boat, an act tantamount to declaring war.

Are there any references that mention something like this? (I'm not afraid to be shown wrong or ignorant.)

Hello there!

Can anyone recommend for any books that deal with US Reconstruction era, specifically in the South? I’m reading David W. Blight’s book on Frederick Douglass, and I’d love to explore the Reconstruction era after the Civil War.

Any recommendations would be much appreciated, please and thank you!

I know that the kickoff of the 100 Years War was the French king formally confiscating the last county of the Plantagenets, Gascony, from the English crown. Would there be any lasting stereotypes about people from Gascony in Dumas's day, that a contemporary reader would pick up on? Or was there some more esoteric reason for the birth place of the main character?

I watched Deutschland 86 a while back and the storyline revolving around USSR agents working within South Africa (especially with liberation movements) intrigued me. Has anyone got any book recommendations that would allow me to learn more about this?

In the past, people would have been aware of the differences between cultures that could cause a serious misunderstanding. A meaningless hand gesture in one culture could be a serious insult in another.

Did explorers of the past develop "protocols" on how to behave during interactions with new peoples so as to avoid any unintended faux pas. And if so, do any of these records survive?

Wondering how we returned to public school post pandemic/epidemics as a means to view our goal to return to school now?

Is the fascist ideology necessarily racist like Nazism?

Apparently, Ghenghis Khan was responsible for 40 million deaths. Joseph Stalin's regime is said to be responsible for 20 million. How do historians reach these estimations when the figures are so high? I understand that Nazi Germany was somewhat obsessive about record-keeping and that made estimating the number of deaths in the Holocaust relatively straightforward, but surely the same cannot be said for Ghenghis Khan? So on what do historians base their estimates?

​

As a secondary question, what does it mean to say that Ghenghis Khan or Joseph Stalin were 'responsible' for somebody's death? Would, for example, a convicted murderer being executed be included in the figures, given that this person would be executed in almost any contemporary society?

I'm writing a story about a closeted director in 1934 Hollywood, and I'm trying to get a sense of 1) what terms gay men used to refer to themselves 2) what terms people in "polite society" used.

From what I've read, "gay" (or "gaycat") may have been in circulation but wasn't common yet, even among gay men. In oft-quoted "Bringing Up Baby," when a flummoxed Cary Grant is asked why he's wearing Katherine Hepburn's feathery bathrobe, he blurts "Because I went GAY all of a sudden!" Censors didn't know what that meant, or they wouldn't have allowed it.

(When asked what he's doing wearing the frilly garment, he says "I'm sitting in the middle of 42nd Street (NYC) waiting for a bus." One person I read noted that 42nd Street was a popular LGBT hangout, but that reference seems obscure, even from Howard Hawks.)

What I landed on was "queer," which had many uses depending on how you said it. Like "Jew," it can be descriptive, but say it a certain way and it's an epithet.

Can anyone offer advice or recommendations for resources?

RAJ

I read older history books (Lazenby, Cartledge), and they show that while the Spartans weren't the superhumans of legend, they were a particularly militarised state.

From reading this sub, however, it seems that the Spartans were not much more militarised, or much better soldiers, than the other Greek states. When/why did the scholarly consensus change?