Hello historians! I have often read that, before the 19th century, it was pretty current to share a bed with family/friends and even strangers when people were traveling. Is this true? If yes, when and why did this stop? When did it become normal to sleep alone?

Title explains it all.

I understand that those sailors could obviously not drink salt-water, but there were ways to use heat on salt-water and gather condensation to make fresh water (provided there was flammable material). I’d assume sailors back then also knew how to fish using large nets.

Besides dealing with scurvy, it seems those long voyages could be self sustaining and not be limited by water / food.

To reiterate and expand on my question: why was food and water often an limiting factor during those long voyages in the Age of Exploration? Did the people back then not know these methods of making fresh water? Was it hard to catch fish on those huge ships?

It seems to me that the left-wing opposition wasn't very influential or organized at all — how did things get so far out of hand?

If the purpose of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to essentially secure their left flank as they expanded south and west into the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Formosa etc., they presumably had made the assumption that the US would intervene to stop them. Was this a good assumption or a strategic miscalculation?

(disclaimer; I in no way want to imply that I believe returning soldiers were treated harshly/that I condone their actions or anything of that sort. Just interested in how the average German would have viewed it)

Were returning soldiers welcomed or shunned, did they proudly talk of their exploits or display souvenirs, were veterans groups set up? Were those who didn't make it back remembered as heroes by family/community? Was it worse/different/better even for the more overtly "Nazi" soldiers such as SS members?

I'm guessing the experience will have been quite different between East and West Germany as well?

I'm curious what we know about people who, at great risk to themselves, fought against their neighbors and country in Nazi Germany in the 1940s. Are there any common traits or circumstances that bind these people together? For example, did they tend to know more Jews on average? Were they often socially outcast in some way? Were they rich, or were they poor? Educated? Religious?

I'm primarily interested in those who might normally fit in, probably meeting a lot of normal German stereotypes. Obviously a Jew would be more likely to resist because they often didn't have a choice.

I wanted to ask about how the Ainu people interacted with what we usually think of as "japanese" (the emperor, the class system, the political alliances, etc.) during the non-modern times, but i realize that's way too broad. I think that the ainu area of influence was bigger in the past, but i'm not sure about any details beyond that.

It seems to me that this happened some time over the course of the twentieth century. This reflection came to me because the second generation of English Romantic poets (i.e., Shelley, Byron, and Keats) were among my heroes in my last year of high school, but when I made it known to my peers that I liked poetry, they often seemed to find that very worthy of derision.

Every time I see something about Mayans in movies/video games they always have elaborate technology that baffles me to think how they knew what to do to make it work. Can any of you guys please explain to me how they did it and how they remembered it for a different project? Thanks -sadboi

Like, I get that small german states were the norm, not the exception up until 1871, but Mecklenburg was sat between a lot of powers competing for baltic dominance (Denmark, Sweden, Prussia), who all tried to grab as much baltic coastline as possible. Despite this Mecklenburg seems not only to have been independent, but rarely even involved in war.

Does anyone know the reason for this? I've read that Mecklenburg was very de-centralized and feudal up until unification, does that have anything to do with it?

I also get that this question seems to stem from a videogame type of mindset and that in the real world powers didn't just conquer for the hell of it, but seeing that Mecklenburg has a lot of coastline it appears atleast to have some strategic value. Credit to r/valledafighta

As far as I know, they still had Berlin at the time of surrender. Was it because of the invading soviets from the East?

I just heard that Les Miserablés (I've never seen it) is set in the "June Rebellion" in 1830, not in the French Revolution, and it was against a monarchy. Wasn't the monarchy abolished decades earlier in the Revolution? Why was there another?

Hi. So it's a bit odd to me that the Dutch despite being a colonial power who had Dutch people already living in Africa they got nothing. They were the only western European colonial power that didn't have any colonies in Africa. I am aware the British had the cape colony and wouldn't give it up but they could have got lands in modern day Namibia or Botswana.

One of my history teachers once told me a few years ago that the people of Europe in the Middle Ages referred to the black skin of African individuals such as Moors, as blue, with black being reserved as a color to mean evil or dark. A person describing a Moor would not say that his skin was black, but blue, in other words.

I took his word for it at the time but now I'm not sure. Is this remotely true?

Thanks!