There are a variety of mens' hats in formal wear that I can think of: bowler hats, fedoras, Hombergs, and top hats.

There are also a variety of mens' hats I can think of that are associated with informal wear: cowboy hats, newsboy caps, flatcaps, and berets.

But, as far as I can tell, it is extremely uncommon for anyone to wear these in Europe or North America today. When people do wear them, it is usually to make some kind of fashion statement (merely by virtue of wearing the hat, not by virtue of anything about the hat itself). The formal hats especially seem to be particularly taboo for men to wear these days (i.e. I get the impression it would be difficult to be taken seriously while wearing a top hat)

What led to the decline of mens' hats and when did this occur? I imagine it was some time in the 20th century, but I'm not sure when or why exactly.

Examples include Mithral Hall from Forgotten Realms, the Lonely Mountain from The Hobbit, Tronjheim from Eragon (not to be confused with the similarly-named Norwegian city), etc. I'm specifically not referring to civilizations on the slopes of mountains, like the definitely-not-dwarf Qanuc of Memory, Sorrow and Thorn - they need to carve great cities within the mountains themselves.

I mean, how often would you have two armies running full speed at one another just desperately seeking to destroy the other one, followed by a simple clash of arms in the middle of the battlefield, that might last for several minutes/hours? Or, was it more of walking up to each other, doing some stabs, someone breaks, not a lot of people die, everyone else goes home?

I would imagine that this varies by the culture in the fight, but the picture in my mind is basically the Battle of Stirling [Bridge] in Braveheart.

By other symbols of the Monarchy I am thinking the crowns, the Royal Standard and other such items. I would assume people didn't see the need to keep them as they didn't forsee the monarchy returning. So were they kept somewhere safe? Or am I totally wrong and were they destroyed and Charles II had to have a new set made?

I only ask this because just recently, I found out from Ancestry that I am directly related to the Founding Father, Richard Henry Lee (8th great grandfather). After looking at the Lee Resolution and other things he did, I'm genuinely surprised he isn't as well known as the other Founding Fathers.

With this in mind, how come Lee is only known amongst history nerds and not up there with the more iconic Founding Fathers?

The video game Assassins Creed has a large number of roman ruins in England around 850 AD. While I understand that's a video game, how much would the average Saxon in that time period actually see of Roman buildings and constructions?

Do we know if he had conflicted feelings about this? Did it cause disagreement with other communists, and was it used as a point of attack against him?

I was reading about the Iroquois confederacy and it seems kind of similar to the US states, a system of federalism with the gens.

Also, was it typical for people from the various republics to flow to the best universities in Moscow? Or would a bright student from, say, Uzbekistan just study at the best university in their country?

Was STEM promoted over humanities? How important was it to have a full grasp of the works of Marx and Lenin to get into a good university as an engineer?

Did the militaries of the medieval period have a defined unit structure like with modern militaries where you had six soldiers in a squad, three squads in a patrol, etc., Or were they more like 'grab a bunch of dudes and go that way'?

I’m looking for Podcasts similar to The Rhine, Uncivil, or The History Chicks.

I’m most interested in Medieval European history; but if it’s a well-researched podcast that you think will educate me, please share.

Forgive me if this kind of post isn’t allowed.

This is a broad question about historiography and you should feel free to answer within the context of your specific historical specialty. I was talking to a friend about the development of certain fields of history and adjacent fields like American Studies, and what historians in the past used to study/talk about. We came to the realization that though we both have heard a lot in our classes about how important post-colonialism and post-slavery discourses are to the humanities at large, and how they changed the way people thought, it's very difficult for us to imagine what the practice of history used to look like in, for example, the 18th or 19th century, and before that too.

What was history like as a profession before the post-colonial turn and how different or similar would it be to the history that contemporary academics practice? Were there new methodologies that specifically came out of post-colonialism, and were there any that stopped being employed (or at least fell out of wide use)?

After reading about how the Vikings would blood eagle their victims, or Vlad the Impaler, what was it about the time period that necessitated so many different methods of torture?

To my knowledge, the three Germanic tribes that invaded England after the fall of Rome were the Angles, the Jutes and the Saxons. Why are the Jutes not in the name "Anglo-Saxon"?

I read an article about Geel , Belgium and this question has been bugging me since. How could we even analyze mental health before we had a better framework for it? I was taught that artists were the first psychologists but I’m extremely curious about how we look at the history of mental health and what would eventually become psychology.

It's always bugged me when I listen to podcasts or read about history this explanation is given. I've never been to Italy or Greece, but they both seem to have plenty of hills and rugged terrain when looking at maps.

I was going through the world war II museum in new orleans with my bf (he's American I'm french) and I pointed out that the south of France was constantly painted red and occupied by the nazie germany when the south was actually called Free France with its own government ruled by Charles de Gaulle, and leading the resistance as the French people never stopped fighting the nazis. Free France was part of the Allies, but the museum which is supposed to be the biggest WWII museum in the USA never mentioned the Free France as part of the Allies forces nor mentioned them in any way. And I'm not sure about any of you but my bf never has seen the Free France as part of the Allies nor ever taught about them. Why is there this omission from the American perspective of WWII when in truth the USA did help, finance and fight alongside them? Or am I missing something? A clarification would be helpful.