Reading the Sherlock Holmes stories, frequent mention is made to Dr. Watson’s “old army revolver,” but which revolver was it? In The Sign of the Four and elsewhere there is reference to loading with cartridges, which would imply that Watson carries an Enfield Mark 1 service revolver, introduced in 1880, as he served in the second Anglo-Afghan war, which ended in 1880. However, being that he left the army as a result of injury, he likely was not still serving in 1880, which would mean he would have been carrying a Beaumont-Adams, which is not a cartridge firing revolver but a percussion cap model. Additionally, in The Speckled Band, Sherlock references “Eley’s No. 2,” a cartridge first introduced after 1900, when the story is stated to take place in 1883.

Is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle just imprecise, or is there a single revolver Dr. John Watson can be said to have carried?

*too on the nose

Just wondering, because I’ve heard this and want to know more. It seems very convenient that the auto companies had all kinds of spare funds to buy up their competition.

Just curious as to how many of the soldiers who fought for independence in large part on the principles of “no taxation without representation” actually had representation following the war, since as far as I know only white land owning men could vote. It seems like the soldiers who do most of the actual fighting in wars are often poor, so they might not have even been allowed to vote in their new country. Or were there land allowances given to veterans or other perks?

the thing is huge and can destroy any city. why didnt the russians mass produce it?

So, if I was an aristocrat in your time period of expertise and I have enough [Monetary Equivalent] burning a hole in my pocket that I decide to commission a plaza or cathedral or other great building in my city - how do I go about securing the actual land to build it on?

In a dense city, would I have to own the land before the development or could I buy it from the owners then develop it? Or could I work with local leaders to just evict the current denizens?

I am assuming that the idea of a central authority planning the layout of a city is a thoroughly modern concept and I guess my question boils down to: how was the layout of cities determined throughout history, especially when it came to monuments or other large buildings?

This question arises from watching YouTube videos attributing, amongst other factors, Roman army success to logistical ability. My understanding of logistic history is that the main difference between modern and ancient logistics is that systemic, rational organization was applied to military structures through the 18th and 19th century.

But is my assumption correct? I couldn't find a detailed answer through searching here. To help reduce scope, I'm specifically asking about European army logistical development (although if someone wishes to discuss logistics in their historical field, please don't hesitate!).

As part of Michael Doheny, Esq.'s 1857, essay "Memoir of the Father Geoffrey Keating, D. D.", included within John O’Mahony’s translation of Geoffrey Keating’s “The History of Ireland”, Doheny writes, "As early as the year 1179, only ten years after the landing of Fitzstephens, we find the name “Halis Keting” a subscribing witness to a grant to Dunbrody Abbey by Herve de Montmorencie."

This "Halis Keting" is often thought to be the first known reference to what is now the Keating surname. His (presumed) descendants, including myself, are often curious about the man and his times.

As an amateur genealogist/historian, I'd love to find a copy of this primary source. However, I only find references to the grant, never a pointer to the repository that contains or contained it. The Abbey's historical center itself is unaware of the grant. The National Archives of Ireland seem to be a possibility, but would this be more likely found in the archives of a museum? Is this document something that may have been available to Doheny and others, but has since been lost? Where does this and other documents of that time reside? Are they even accessible to amateurs?

I guess in many ways, this all comes down to a meta question - how do historians find the primary resources for their chosen interest? Are there published indexes to sources?

I only ever hear about summer spring fall battles but I dont actually know of any civil war battles fought in snow, where as the US Revolution had significant winter actions

I know that they didn't really have them, but they did refer to each other as "Son of ..." Often. Or their place of origin like "Such and such of Laconia," but my question is, what is the translation of these? Like if Socrates' dad was Sythroniskus (I doubt that I spelled that correctly) then his "surname" would have been what? By middle age English/Norse standard, that is (Johnson/Erikson)

Was that just allowed? Aren't the Mamluks kinda salty about the crusades still? Was there no danger of kidnap and ransom? Did he have to notify and get permission from the local authority first?

Bormann, for example, was tried and sentenced to death in absentia, despite his (as we would know later) death in Berlin at the end of the war in Europe. While Hitler had also died at the end of the war, as I understand it, there was some confusion in the immediate post-war period whether Hitler had actually died. Therefore, by the time of the trials, why was Hitler himself not formally tried in absentia?

When I say future I mean far, far future. I'm wondering if there is any writing or anything about their thoughts of the future.

I have always wondered this and have never seen it in a book or any resource.

I also wonder if the discovery of gun powder dramatically change their thoughts of the future?

Thanks in advance!

(Warning: Rather Long)

I am writing a science fiction story - and within that story, I have a character that is supposed to be from a planet that is just beginning to learn how to work Iron on a large scale. The character himself is from an area roughly analogous to the Southern Levant just after the fall of Egyptian Hegemony. The planned character is a part of his nation's hereditary scribes. However, to prevent this character's background from just being window dressing/making him into yet another Conan the Barbarian knockoff, I feel that I need a good understanding of the psychological background of this era. While I do have a layman's understanding, I feel like I may be missing some things.

Effectively, how did the people of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages think, feel, and interact with their larger community and the world around them? Were there any fundemental differences in worldview that would be particularly alien or narratively interesting to a modern reader? Beyond simple folkways(though some of those will also feature), what foundational Mores and morals were central to the lives of the Late Bronze Mediterranean? I understand that surviving texts from the Levant are rather sparse, so an understanding of mentality from other LBA civilizations would also be appreciated.

As a further bit of context, I am not planning a story of "sky-men have magic boat!" Where a supposedly primitive character is consistently dazzled by advanced technology, and more of an exploration of how a person with this cultural-moral background with interact with some of our own contemporary morals.

Some Flavor Quotes(to see if I am getting the feel right so far):

(On the eve of a battle)

"And so he cast the sacrifice into his makeshift altar - not as propitiation for sins, as some might foolishly claim, but as a political act, calling his God to war, even as a vassal would plead with his suzerain when under attack."

(To a conquered people, after winning said battle)

"I haven't taken your sons as slaves, and I haven't divided your daughters among my own warriors - so what's the issue?"

(To a human criminal being interrogated, while playing up his 'barbarian' image)

"Yes, you have 'rights...' Unfortunately for you, I'm still a little... fuzzy on the concept."

When did the housing market begin. When did companies begin mass building and selling and the general public go from building their own to buying and renting property ?

Was it a sudden movement because of the industrial revolution and people needing to love for work ?

First i respect historians completely. It doesn't have to answer to any other field. So i know that all serious historians use serious and considered methodology with a great emphasis on understanding the quality and potential explanatory value of their sources! My question is not so much about that, as about existing resources that i and others could find and consume (like online university classes, books and others) and what to call them and how to find them.

In all history classes i've taken, methodology and specific historical narratives where taught separately. When you learned the "histories" themselves, it was simply on the assumption that the methodology was properly used, other than of course there was sources you could go through (mind you, i understand this choice, because i think most people much prefer a narrative, and it remembers much more easily).

That being said, is there a type of "history class/product" taught, where the narrative is less in the driving seat, and the focus is instead mainly on the evidence, without much conclusive narrative spun around it? So forexample saying:

"Look at this assyrian pottery, these are systematically found in such and such places, often near this and this, in these conditions and so on - and these are the 2-3 theories about history, thought to best explain this type of finding..."

This ends up sounding a bit like archeology, but i also mean in the approach to purely written sources.

I work in the sciences, and didn't appreciate history enough as a kid, which i now deeply regret. And i've sometimes online found history lessons (Occasionally on like Khanacademy, a few off Yale's youtube channel, etc.) that completely gripped me, because i felt "close" to the evidence in a different way.

I just want to be able to find more of this, and i'm not sure whether i have the vocabulary and understanding to really search for it.

DISCLAIMER: I want to say i'm real sorry if this isn't appropriate for this subreddit! I tried to read through the rules and the faq, and although i can see this is kind of a meta question, i couldn't see it being disallowed.

When taught about European feudalism we are often taught about how there were multiple levels of nobility going from the Kings to the Dukes, Counts, Barons etc. However, when taught about Japanese feudalism there are only the shogun, daimyo, samurai, etc. Now this is what is taught in high school and what seems to come up when I search the internet. I understand that it is much more complex then this politically.
Anyway, in Europe Dukes ruled Duchies Counts ruled counties etc. My question is how did land division in Japan work. I know of the provinces but beyond that it just seems to be castles and such. No real mention of different types of lordships like in Europe. It resembles something almost like Game of Thrones where the feudal system is quite vague and lords rule lesser lords. I know that there are different levels of nobility in Japan but I am curious about how land was divided. I apologize if this question is confusing as I didn’t quite know how to ask it. I am asking specifically for information on Pre-Sengoku Japan before the system collapsed.