I am writing a novel and am looking for some information I am struggling to find online: How much would a dock worker have made per week? Where did most dock work take place in Manhatten? Examples of neighborhoods and streets that were overcrowded, impoverished, and would have had many flophouses and boarding house If anyone has any sources that they think could be relevant to my search, I would really appreciate it! Also, if anyone thinks they can contribute information to answering my questions, I would appreciate anything :)

While our modern understanding of the psychological effects of warfare were as crude as the idea of "shell shock" even into the early twentieth century, I'm curious how the people of the ancient and medieval world (specifically the Mediterranean, Near East, and European milieus) dealt with the trauma of war and other forms of violence.

As an example, I've been re-reading John Julius Norwich's three-volume history of the Byzantine Empire and thinking about the experience of common people living in the Balkans and Anatolia in the centuries surrounding and during the first several Crusades. Wave after wave of warfare between the Bulgarian Empire and the Byzantines, the Byzantines and the Seljuk Turks, Crusaders and all of the above, etc.

Towns and cities besieged and sacked over and over again, countrysides marauded by rapacious armies... how did people cope with the constant and repeated threat (and reality) of hideous violence?

And this is not even to mention the soldiers themselves... do we have any insight into how the soldiery processed the experience of repeatedly hacking other humans apart with edged weapons while narrowly avoiding suffering the same fate?

Are there any sources which address the probability that large portions of the populace, both civilian and military, in the ancient and medieval world were likely living with PTSD on a generational scale?

I have always been curious if the history of wine or beer can be traced to a single source or if they are an example of multiple discovery/simultaneous invention.

I was reading about the history of the Temple Mount and it occurred to me that the crusaders controlled Jerusalem but refrained from destroying Muslim holy places. Why?

I would like someone to help me understand something about Danish and Anglo Saxon Kings. At that time, there was the King Cnut the Great from Danish descent who was on the throne and ruled England. Two of his sons (Harold and Harthacnut) followed in his steps as Kings of England.

What troubles me is that after Harthacnut passed away, Edward, an Anglo-Saxon, became king and from what I understand it was because he was popular but that sounds like an oversimplification of events.

Wouldn't Danish Kings be against an Anglo-Saxon back on the throne? Especially since Edward is the brother of Edmund who was formerly king of England and vanquished by Cnut himself?

Thank you for your answers.

As I was reading about the Chinese Civil War I came across this piece of information : "At the beginning of the war, the Nationalist had an advantage in both troops and weapons, controlled a much larger territory and population and enjoyed broad international support. The United States also assisted the Nationalists with hundreds of millions of dollar's worth of military supplies. "

So I'm wondering, how did the Communist Party took over the Nationalists and won the Civil War, forcing them to retreat to Taiwan?

Thank you for your answer!

There are many examples of notable scientists, many of them Jewish, who were natives of Axis countries or axis occupied countries who fled continental Europe at some point before or during the war and contributed to the Allied war effort.

This group of people includes many of the most important thinkers of the early 20th century. Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, and other household names. I think it would be fair to say that American Jews like Oppenheimer were also doubly motivated to help the war effort because of what was happening to their families in Europe. Even Max Planck who remained in Germany through the war seems to have refrained from participating, mostly because the Nazis didn't like him.

Besides the big names there are also dozens of experts in various fields who either remained neutral or defected to the allies because of the persecution of themselves or their ideological objections to the persecution of others by the fascists.

But did it really make a difference? Could the USA have gotten a nuke in time to use it on Japan before the Soviets declared war on them? Could the British have as broken the German codes as successfully? If the greatest physicists happened to all be fervent Nazis instead of Jewish pacifists could Hitler have gotten a nuclear bomb?

I heard about this recently and I am curious about the details. Who was the first country to discover that Spain found new lands, and what was the reaction of the rest of the European World?

Pretty much the only thing I know is that Portugal asked the Pope to give them rights since they were catholic too...

I am creating a mediveal fantasy universe, and im wondering about Polearms/halberds im planning that the main type of weapon of an army is polearms/halberds with a warhammer at one side, would it be more realistic to call it a polearm or a halberd and how effective would a warhammer be against brigandine armor with gambeson underneath?

Does it make sense that when I think about antiquity I think about great infrastructure in every way and birth of democracy and so whereas Middle ages seem to be the worst time people ever had? Or is it just thinking about antiquity I imagine these good times 480-430 bc or so and the rest also was terrible? But if the Greek and roman empire have been such good places, would someone wonder about the main reasons how middle ages could follow?

Maybe this is a bit gross, and I suck at communicating my thoughts, so I was reluctant to ask. But this question has bugged me before, both as a woman and as someone who is a bit into fantasy, and stumbling across information about Dr. James Barry recently reignited it.

I think anyone who has had them can agree periods are annoying, disruptive, gross, and often painful, even with modern conveniences. I’m aware that in some eras at least, women tended to have them less frequently due to more pregnancies and/or lack of nutrition, but I’m pretty sure they still very much happened, and I can presume they were even more annoying to deal with back then. I can barely get a pad designed to stay put to stay put, the idea of managing with nothing but some most likely dirty rags makes me cringe, especially because if I recall correctly women didn’t wear underpants for a lot of at least western history, and washing out blood is a tedious pain in the neck.

So how is it that in less convenient eras, this was seemingly not much a problem for female soldiers or warriors, when they did happen? Especially, say, the occasional female soldier pretending to be male? Or any women who could not afford to be pregnant often for any reason?

While I doubt there are many sources which can give a definitive, super specific answer, if, for example, I decided I wanted to disguise myself as a man and join the first crusade, what options would have been open to me to deal with them discreetly? What about if women being combatants was normal in my culture, how would I or others deal with it without it being disruptive? In a story I want to write, a girl lives in a castle as a knight disguised as a man, so what options would this girl have? Or was there some biological reason it wouldn’t be a problem?

I just read Noel Perrin’s “Giving Up the Gun,” in which he argues that after adopting matchlock muskets in 1543 and ramping up their use over the following decades, Japanese society then gradually stopped using firearms. By the time Americans were forcing their way into Japanese harbors, firearms were practically unknown. Perrin’s argument is nuanced and there are a lot of caveats, so I’m aware Japan didn’t absolutely eliminate guns. But is his interpretation generally accepted? What else should we know about this period that might shed more light or change our interpretation?

Have any historians narrowed down a list of plausible candidates as to who the man in the iron mask from France was?

I've seen the theory that he was the twin of the King but wouldn't there have been witnesses at birth to document the existence of a twin? There would have been some record of the twin existing before his captivity. I just don't understand why else would they need to cover his face but to conceal his identity and if he isn't a lookalike of the King I don't see much of a reason to conceal his identity. Even then they could ask him a question only the real King could answer to deduce his true identity, so even if he was a exact twin there'd be no reason to hide his face.

Are there any records of prominent people going missing at the time? Are there any similar examples of a prisoner being held for so long with their face covered or is this the only prominent prisioner to have his face covered in captivity?

Are any historians still actively trying to crack the case?

Any input would be appreciated, thanks!

Has Sicily always been viewed as one with the rest of the peninsula? It seems like throughout ancient and early medieval history, Sicily was consistently somewhat independent of the powers of the Peninsula. Rome had to conquer the Greek city states in the later 200s BCE. Sicily was controlled by Islamic powers in the early medieval period, then the normans, etc.