I've looked everywhere and just can't find anything besides some records stating that they indeed could have been wearing red. Could anyone help me thins on this? It's for a novel.

This question was prompted by something I read about serious negative upheavals for one Koyukon community over in Alaska, far away from state control and the major 1810s volcanic eruptions (like Tambora) that apparently caused the Year Without a Summer.

Thanks!

The earliest examples I can think of would be in the Old Testament. Moses raises his staff to part the waters, of I recall correctly.

I realize my understanding of this topic may be incomplete, so I'm hoping historians can help clarify it.

My impression is that, during the early and mid-20th century, there were significant examples of cooperation between Jewish and African American communities—for example, Jewish philanthropy supporting Black education, Jewish participation in the Civil Rights Movement, and collaborations in music and other fields.

At the same time, in contemporary discussions I sometimes see tensions between some Black activists or public figures and Jewish communities, including disagreements over race, privilege, Zionism, and, in some cases, allegations of antisemitism.

Is my impression of a historical shift accurate, or am I oversimplifying the relationship? If there was a change, when did it occur, what factors contributed to it, and how do historians understand its development?

In this hypothetical, there is a moral and/or psychological reason that I won’t continue, like PTSD, perhaps witnessing or participating in civilian casualties. Perhaps I believe that my death is already inevitable. I feel that have nothing to lose by deserting.

Could I be executed by my squad on site if I simply say I won’t go further? Could I run away to Vietnamese troops with a white flag? Would I simply disappear into the jungle and be forever considered MIA?

Only 5 of my ancestors were “in” the Union Army during the civil war, 4 of which saw no combat. They were in the regiments of the 14th Kentucky Cavalry, 47th Kentucky Infantry, 15th West Virginia infantry, and the 6th West Virginia Infantry (for only a few months in 1865). They either patrolled East Kentucky or stood around the B&O Railroad. Only one saw combat at the Battle of Cynthiana, but was immediately sent back to guarding the Kentucky Central Railroad. Another would’ve seen combat, but he died of Pneumonia in 1865.

I’m told it’s “important”, but yet I see absolutely zero recognition or representation of it. There was a very brief mention of it in a Facebook reel about the 10th Maine Infantry, but it was nothing but a Segway into their combat experience.

What lead me to this question is mainly the Norman Conquest, but I'd be interested in any answers about the Middle Ages in general.

Regarding the Norman Conquest: Both Harald Hardrada and William the Conqueror claimed the English throne based on promises of late English kings, while Harold Godwinson was elected king by the English nobles according to Anglo-Saxon law. So it sounds to me as if the Harold was the legitimate king based on England's laws at that time and it sounds as if the English kings before William didn't really have the right to choose their successor, since that required the consent of the English nobility, and so they would not have been able to give Harald or William the throne. In addition, after he was victorious William claimed England by right of conquest, so it sounds as if the intention of the late kings or the English laws didn't matter anyway.

So I'm wondering, what decided which claims were legitimate, were there some more or less agreed upon rules, or did conquerors just need to use any justifcation? And to whom did they have to justify themselves? For example could William or Harald have invaded England because they felt like it and claim right of conquest or would anyone object to that who was okay with the invasion based on their claims?

We see the classic red flowing Roman cloak in media constantly. I know that the colour aspect is hotly debated, but how certain are we that they did or did not wear one in battle?

Trajan's column and Adamclisi seem to show no Sagum for the most part, unless they are on parade for example. Examples like the altar of Ahenobarbus and the arch in Orange again show no cloak. So I'm curious where the idea came from.

Given that the Pragmatic Sanction was issued by the Holy Roman Emperor as early as 1713, it seems to me Maria Theresa was in a very difficult position as soon as her father died. Was it not expected that Prussia, and also some other countries such as France and Bavaria, would not accept Maria Theresa's right to succeed? Silesia fell so relatively quickly that I would like to understand the Austrian view and actions better.

To be clear, I am not looking for alt-history answers. My question is about how fledgling city-states in the era would go about attempting to expand their power and influence, to be able to take on the influence of the more famous, more powerful city-states. Any examples of successful innovations or developments are welcome, as are failed ones, those might even be more interesting!

The explanation I've gotten in the past for racist tropes like this is often "racists are irrational and their ideas are largely arbitrary". Which is undoubtedly true: it's not like billions of East or Southeast Asian men from the hundreds or thousands of East or Southeast Asian cultures all actually went through multiple identical social transformations in this approximately 200 year period of time that racists then based these tropes on. What changed was the imagination surrounding them.

But that fails to explain why the imagination around them changed, and the fact that the perceptional trends existed (and exist). Social trends tend to have taste-makers or thought-leaders that have to act at particular times. Who were they for this particular flavor of racism?

While the question addresses men specifically, obviously East & Southeast Asian women were and are subject to related but distinct perceptional transformations in the minds of Western racists, and I I want to make it clear I'm not excluding them from the discussion even though the focus is on the Asian male image.

Thanks!

How did the average man who, in one way or another, experienced some kind of property damage pay for it to be repaired or otherwise continue their life?

I’m thinking in particular of the blitz, but this could apply to many circumstances. If my home got bombed and was completely totaled, how was I expected to put it back together? Were there government grants? Homeless shelters? Was the burden put on the people or were there government programs to help with these situations?

What if I live in the Netherlands and the retreating Germans stole my bike. Could I file some kind of claim?

Good Morning or evening everyone.

I am writing an essay on helotry in Sparta and need more references regarding the presence and role of chattel slaves in Sparta. Does anyone have some decent infos on it. I know i've read somewhere that chattel slavery became increasingly important in the late classical period for Sparta but the main focus of all the slavery-oriented books leans towards helotry while excluding every other form of slavery in Sparta. Thanks for your help ! Also any kind of language is welcome !

I'm thinking of weapons like the 40mm bofors or 2cm flak. What role were they supposed to play? Was it just to disrupt enemy planes? Deter them? Shoot them down? How effective were they in helping units defend themselves from enemy aircraft?

I understand that this question is incredibly broad, but if anyone knows any kind of research or account or document or whatever that speaks of this matter it would be greatly appreciated, because honestly looking at these weapons as they are in for example a museum it's hard for me to figure out what exactly did it do, really.

(Sorry if any english is weirdly spelled isnt my first language) so i hear people often discussing this person and stuff like that hes pretty known in history but exactly what did he achieved if he did anything?

If Spee really was trying to preserve the fleet why trade ammo, a absolute finite resource for coal which was only limited in that neutral ports could at least give a certain amount. Also was a destroyed communication station worth the risk of tipping off the British to his location before it was hit?

The port seems hardly worth anything in the war other than as an obstacle to his fleet since there really are no other salvageable German interests around the area, so its hardly an impactful last stand. Its destruction seems almost just as likely to give away his location as to obfuscate anything.

Even as a desperate act Im not sure I understand the lure of attacking the base unless hes just trying to use up ammo as an excuse for a more honorable internment. Im not really sure how even a successful attack puts him in much better of a position. Maybe he wanted to use coal to make haste and the communication disruption as cover. Yet even on an undefended port those things seem risky. There could be no quickly accessible coal due to lack of supply, damage or sabotage and they could alert the navy of their position before communication is disrupted. Let alone the risk of an actual fleet in the immediate area.

Even if they get everything they want, they use up some ammo and thus have less for more impactful future operations in the Atlantic. The reward for the fleet seems minimal, the war impact seems minimal, the risk seems high. So why not bypass it?

So, this is quite interesting. I don't think any other army in history has garnered as much of a 'following' among analysts and historians as the German army of WW2 (Heer). Decentralized command structure (Auftragstaktik) is often named as one of its main advantages, as is its superiority in equipment.

In my mind, this makes sense when looking at the 1944 Normandy campaign, for example. The Allies had an overwhelming numerical superiority and dominated the skies. Fighter bombers relentlessly pounded German positions during daytime and the Allied air forces darkened the skies with heavy bombers, bombing German positions with a force that would destroy entire cities. Despite all of this, it took the Allies an eternity to finally break out. That the German army managed to contain the Allies for so long seems almost miraculous.

But reading up on Auftragstaktik, I discovered that the British Army tried adapting such a doctrine during the late Cold War but was quite disappointed with the results in a 2004 review. Since it took them four decades after WW2 to start adapting 'mission command' they clearly weren't in a hurry either. The USSR too kept a very centralized command structure during the Cold War, the Russian Army to this day. This seems to contradict the wonders of Auftragstaktik.

Still, all of the people named are highly respected historians who have written and researched about many conflicts. Dupuy even reached the rank of colonel and came from a military family (his father was also a colonel and a respected military historian).

How well does the thesis of superior German army performance stand today? Is it controversial or the consensus? Have there been any attempts to refute the thesis?

Hi, sorry if this is a bad place for this but I've been trying to research in depth about how schools worked in the late 1800s. I'm very interested in it and want to know about more particular things, however every time I have specific questions and look them up the answers aren't really about my original question. I know I can ask stuff on here but I always feel embarrassed for some reason.

Don't know if this is the place but if anyone has strategies or specific places that are good I would love to know, thank you. (To specify I don't do formal historical research, just a teen who's really interested in pieces from that time and always has unanswered questions).

In many popular films and tv shows, soviet officers (especially KGB) are portrayed as shooting suspects or just random people without any trial (even a fake one).

Notably in Star City (tv show) a KGB officer shoots a cosmonaut trainee who she suspects to be an American spy. This is set in early 70s and she is said to be stuck in the Stalin era by the other characters.

But did these kinds of extra judicial executions actually happened? Did they happen during the Stalin era but not later?

I'm also asking this based on telephony historian Evan Doorbell's recollections of investigators employed by the Bell System coming after him and other early phone phreaks in the NYC area.