Sorry if this isn't a rule abiding question, I tried.

I mainly just want to know what good they really did in the war besides scouting and dogfights. Besides that I'm not too sure what other good they good have done. But considering how it was a new machine I was just curious on what other duties that had.

Its seems that UFOs as saucer like objects has dominated popular culture for decades. Where did this image originate? Is there a piece of fiction that made it popular originally?

Angels in the bible are described as being these horrifying looking creatures with many eyes, multiple heads (some with the heads of other animals) and some look like spinning wheels. Angels in art always look like regular people or babies. Why is this?

Seems strange

I’ve always been intrigued as to what other effects were caused after the Zimmerman telegram was shown. Did any relationships change between the United States and Mexico?

It’s a question that’s been bugging me since I first thought of it a few days ago. I’m aware that any survivors of the Russian Civil War would be at best, in their eighties by 1991, but that would still leave at least a handful alive. Have any of their stories been written down, and did any make the journey back to Russia? My thanks in advance.

I know adultery was considered a sin, alcoholism was a sin for having drunk the "fifth cup", and in some places pride as well, but what else was a sin for Mesoamerica?

Since about 1 hour i've been on the search for USA propaganda posters depicting the space race but i've only found 2 while i found countless ones for the soviet union. Is there a specific reason for this discrepancy or am I missing a lot of them?

I have heard this explained away in a quick sentence along the lines of "there were few ports or resources along the coast." I still find this surprising, given that dragging gold across the desert is really difficult and that the societies that West Africa was trading with had highly developed maritime technology and traditions. Why didn't the Arabs (or the Europeans, or the Egyptians for that matter) just sail down the coast of Africa, load up on gold, and sail back? It seems very strange to me.

Or was it perhaps just inconvenient, since it takes some time for fountain pen ink to dry?

I guess this is kinda two separate questions in one: why did the Christians include it in theirs, and why did the Jews not? Not knowing much about Christian theology, I’m confused as to why they thought it ought to be part of their religious texts, whereas I would think the Jews would include the narrative of them fighting against those who tried to take away their religion.

How much do we know in general about the selection of books for the Tanakh?

As in the title, my question is whether the Romans had a name with which they referred to the Sahara itself as a geographical location, in addition to their names for African regions such as "Aethiopia" or "Mauretania."

I am an Industrial Engineering Major and Computer Science Minor and in my final year of courses with only 10 classes remaining. I am undoubtedly planning on getting a job at the beginning of the 2021 year in my studies because I need money for shelter, food, and travel... you know, the necessities.

Over the past 4 years though, I have been reading books and articles on mythologies from many regions. I am by no means an expert; I just really enjoy comparing the archetypes of characters and motifs of stories, and frankly, just reading them period. My center focus over the past few months has been mainly creation myths of the Indus valley, Mesopotamian, and South American region.

I would really like to further study all of these and more through an online program or university of some sorts and maybe eventually earn a higher level degree. Does anyone have any experience or suggestions? Would be much appreciated!

Back when it was mostly tribes vs tribes, how did people get away with having babies? My son is a month old and despite being fed and changed every 2-3 hours, he still cries plentiful all day long so I can only imagine back then when they couldn’t take as good care of babies.

So how did they get away with babies without their constant yelling/crying alerting other people or animals to their position?

I’m curious as to how or why this was decided and communicated across the globe. Were the years being counted differently (and if so how was time recorded prior?) and then one day it was decided to start at 0 again at the year of Jesus’ birth and count from there? Was there any pushback against this?

Bell hooks argues that the black liberation tradition has been dominated by a “patriarchal” discourse that marginalizes the perspectives and concerns of black women. After summarizing her position, evaluate its accuracy?

The German Democratic Party received 18.6% of the vote in 1919, becoming the 3rd biggest party in the Reichstag. The very next year they were reduced to 8% of the vote and continued to decline. I specifically ask about them because, to my totally ignorant eyes, they seem to have fitted an important niche: a pro Weimar "bourgeois" party without being a confessional party. But I feel I'm probably heavily misunderstanding the Weimar political landscape and why elections returned more and more anti Weimar deputies.

this might be a lame question, but I heard so many different opinions on this, so, is it Vikings historically accurate? And what are the worst mistakes made on the show (on its historical context)?

Feel like everyone is talking about this guy in the past few days.

I've been reading Blackshirts and Reds and the lack of sources really annoy me. The pro-Stalinist message is really rampant, but that'd be fine if it were based on empiric facts that one could double check. I really enjoy Moshe Lewin's more nuanced depiction of the USSR, so was hoping Parenti would be something similar. I don't mind a historical narrative with Marxist intentions, but it seems Parenti really lacks sources for most of his claims.

What are r/AskHistorians thoughts on him? Would love to hear from fellow Marxists who are coming at it from a critical perspective. Don't think we have anything to gain by supporting historians with no sources or mystifying dead nations.