This question could be extended to other monarchs such as Lady Jane Grey, Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, and even Elizabeth II at the time of her coronation in the fifties. I understand that the rules for coronation and succession are different in the UK but I'm still surprised that something as progressive as a female leader would have been allowed by the government or the populace in the 1800's, let alone even earlier.

I'm watching some WW2 footage on YouTube and these guys are in the transport and I'm thinking to myself "How terrifying would it be if I were the first guy who had to face the machine-gun fire when thr door opens"

Seems like the first guys in line are probably pretty dead when the machine guns open up. And I get that a lot of guys are just that brave, but certainly it wasn't completely decided by volunteers?

From what I understand it just seems that there was just one that continues this day but the main political rules were their puppet rulers.

This is probably false but I'm just now learning about Japanese history and I'm just trying to get a foundation.

I was listening to history podcasts and it was mentioned that Jews were historically a very prejudiced people which went further back than I imagined and continued as such.

But why Jewish people specifically? And why Jewish people as frequently and seemingly worldwide? Is there some entrenched religious war? Are they always seen as immigrants, which tend to always be disliked in history?

What in England was going on to continuously persecute the Jews?

Hello, (food) historians. I'm working on short-story that features a Japanese girl from a wealthy family in the warring states period. It would be most convenient if she could bribe a cat yōkai that takes up residence in her house with some kind of milk treat.

I thought that historical sweets would be easy to research... but here I am. Any insight into Japanese desserts of the period would be much appreciated, so I can get back to working on her clothes and naginata practice.

Are there any instance of US citizens that joined the fighting in the war as volunteers before the USA actually joined the war? I already know volunteers did in fact serve behind the front lines but were there any at the front lines that were actual US volunteers fighting? As in, for example, fighting under the Canadian flag?

If there were would they be added into the existing divisions or would they be put on their own separate divisions to differentiate them from the non-volunteers?

What would (or actually) happened to them when the US joined the war? Did they get sent back to serve in the US army or did they stay as volunteers fighting under a different countries flag?

Sorry if I seem repetitive.

How much Ancient works, books, and memories were really lost to us? Is it as bad as I heard before, that so much is lost that it set us back a thousand years?

I would like to know the height, reach, age, and weight of the boxers. Do they have a database of fighters and their opponents, like we do in modern times?

This is interesting to me cuz they had no weight divisions, so i want to see how well the smaller fighters faired against the bigger guys.

This is not easy information to find. I've looked everywhere.

I've been reading a few books about the Qing period and they touch on the exams but don't go into a lot of detail, other than saying that they tested "Confucian classics" and describing the general process. I'm interested in how people at the time saw knowledge of these classics as being useful in government.

I've seen on many an emperor's "resumé" that one of their greatest legacies was the spread of language. While this is obviously true, why is it such a big deal? Would the native language of conquered peoples not have done fine? And why are people praised for this when it seems like one of the most basic effects of expanding your people's territory?

I have family members who believe the Civil war was about tariffs or "state's rights" while I was taught that slavery was the cause of the Civil war but I don't really have anything to proof it. So could I get some help from one of you with actual proof that the Civil War was about slavery?

To clarify, has nukes dropped as nuclear weapon testing ever accidently been dropped too close to someone and harmed them through the shockwave, heat or further complication with the nuclear fallout?

What is known about his opinion on sexual orientation? Are there any records of them?

The swastika is a very common symbol in a lot of eastern religions. Is this because Hitler wanted them to be negatively viewed because of their religious symbols? Or is there some other reason for Hitler being motivated to use the swastika?

I don't know if this question fits here, but because I want an academic historical answr and I thought this would be the best place.

From my continuing study of Judaism, the idea of a dying and rising Messiah is almost unheard of, except maybe, just maybe, among a few here and there at the time. But the idea of a Messiah dying on a cross and rising from the dead on the third day as expressed in Christianity is a first among Jews. The vast majority of Jews never would have thought that the Messiah is supposed to die, let alone die at the hands of the Romans and then rise from the dead. That is used as an argument that whatever the disciples of Jesus experienced, must be earth-shattering because of how outrageous of a claim they made, and more so when the fact they were Jews, born and raised among Jews taken into account.

During the time of Jesus, late Second Temple period it is agreed that many claimed to be the "prophet" or the Messiah, and soon after, they were crushed by the Romans and their movement ended right then and there. But that is not what happened with the Jesus movement. On the contrary, by the mid-first century, they were visible enough for Nero to target them.

What is it that would explain such rise of a movement which should have been killed with the death of its founder like all the others? From an academic historical point of view, what are the possible explanations?

Someone on the internet made the claim that stories of dragons hoarding gold were intended to be warnings against individual humans hoarding wealth.

Gold hoarders = dragons = destructive villains.

The parallels make sense, but is there any truth to the claim?

Marie Antoinette, queen of France was imprisoned for over a year between August 1792 to October 1793 before being executed. Her own side of the family and relatives were also aristocratic, supposedly with armies of their own. Why were no negotiations or invasions attempted to rescue her during her imprisonment, especially after her husband was executed?

Obviously, I'm not disputing the brilliance of his victories in pitched battles against the Romans, however I'm questioning his continued stay in Italy for about 10 years after it had ceased to bring victories. Hannibal's initial goal was to force Rome to surrender after 1-2 decisive battles on their own soil. The battles were indeed won, however not only did the Romans not surrender, they also stopped trying to engage Hannibal's main force, instead cutting off his supply lines. In this situation, Hannibal chose to stay in South Italy while Carthaginian forces were being defeated on other theaters. This stay ended only when the war for Carthage was essentially lost and Hannibal had to rush back to Africa to face Scipio Africanus - which ended with Rome's war-ending victory at Zama.

My impression is that South Italy was too close to Rome and too far from Carthage (considering that sea was dominated by Rome at that point) to stay in Carthaginian/allied hands in the long term. At the same time, Hannibal and his army could have been useful in other places where Carthage had lost without him. Thus, Hannibal had won a few battles but lost the war.

Any flaws in my reasoning? :)

Also, did it happen?

To narrow down the focus, let's assume I'm in England. Would my father (the king) really care what I do? Could I devote my life to some sort of scholarship with my family's money? Or would I be "forced" to rule over some smaller area of land?

I am admittedly a history noob, so apologies if this has been covered or is easily looked up (or if the question stems from some sort of misunderstanding of events). Dan Carlin, in hardcore history episode 59, mentions that Stalin was such a problem in the era 1957-1952 that the US was strongly considering dropping atomic weapons on Communist Russia to thwart their advance. But why would it not be better to somehow assassinate him, or even drop some standard bombs? Was the bombing technology not advanced enough to target his living quarters specifically, or was there another reason? Were the US generals at the time even considering this?