I tried searching the subreddit for similar questions, but saw questions about The Jungle by Upton Sinclair and population centers in the Amazon rainforest (the recent discovery of those has inspired this question).

Heya champs, I'm Mike, a white thirtysomething with two kids, a wife, some photography equipment, and some dark ambiguous backstory that might suggest a tragic death in my past. We found this house for sale here in r/AskHistorians and we just love it. Great size, gorgeous yard, low price....suspiciously low? Haha, well, the Thirtysomething family doesn't look a gift horse in the mouth. But now that you mention it...

That setup is familiar, right? New family buying a house to live in, but uh oh! Spooky ghosts in the house! And this is no culturally insensitive burial grounds, no sir! Some Insidious ghouls seem to be attached to the buildings themselves.

So skipping past the question of dubious burial grounds, how long has it been a concern that "the house I want to buy" specifically (so irrespective of land rights? structure, not settlement) might be haunted? Or is the hauntedness of habitations a modern concern?

I’ve been researching my family history. My paternal grandmother lost her hearing due to measles when she was an infant. She was enrolled in a school for deaf children in Louisiana in the 1920s. I was able to obtain copies of her enrollment paperwork as well as a master report card document.

The one class which was different than what would be seen on a traditional report card was Lip Reading. It got me to thinking. What was education like for deaf children during that time?

I joined a Marxist reading group a year ago and everyone in it besides me is absolutely adamant that the idea that Stalin was a brutal despot and mass killer is just imperialist propoganda. This girl sent me a podcast by these communists who lay out the case defending Stalin, but I'm not sure where to go to verify or dispute any of their claims.

In the cursory research I've done on the matter, I haven't found a single historian who doesn't have a vested interest in rehabilitating Stalin (communists) who argues that Stalin was actually a benevolent leader.

Is there something I'm missing here? Or am I correct in suspecting that all the people in my Marxist reading group (who I agree with about most other things) have been deceived by their ideological commitments into embracing a demonstrably false view of 20th century Russian history?

It is my understanding that among serious historians there is at least somewhat of a a range of opinions about how bad Stalin was, and about what specific domains he may have been successful in. In your view, what is the most charitable possible interpretation of Stalin that can be plausibly argued for with primary source evidence?

I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.

My understanding was that the Greek world was in awe of Spartan military prowess and leadership and this reverrence mostly traces back to the Battle of Thermopylae. Everyone thinks the Spartans are the best warriors and they are willing to die defending Greece from Xerxes.

Wouldn't taking Persian money and ships to fund their war against Athens be a betrayal of this stand? Did any contemporary Greeks remark on this, or have any thoughts about how Persia is sort of able to buy the influence in mainland Greece they weren't get through conquest?

I'm very curious about racism in Maine during the 1960s-1970s but I have only found so many resources. Most are books that are hard to find or archives that I need to contact the Historical Society of Maine for. I can't find much of the Portland Chapter of the NAACP either. Would like to be recommended resources because I'd love to know more. I live very far from Maine, so it's not exactly easy to get information first hand.

Please redirect me to the correct sub if this is not it, thanks.

In "The Knight and the Blast Furnace", Alan Williams uses Vickers Pyramid Hardness as a proxy for how good a material is at resisting penetrators, and the tests he performs in the same book largely align with that conclusion. On p. 5-6 he notes the range of VPH for bronze as 110-270, depending on cold working. On p. 17-18 he gives the range of 100-180 for armor-quality iron (depending on slag) and 180-260 for low-carbon steel, increased to 300-400 for medium carbon slack-quenched and up to 400-500 for medium-carbon, full-quenched, tempered steel of the sort that rich men in the early modern era could afford. In other words, bronze was superior to iron and comparable to low-quality steel.

When I look at bronze armor such as the Dendra panoply or the much later muscle cuirasses, they seem to provide decent coverage in the form of solid plates. For the former, the plates are apparently 1 to 1.5 mm thick, which is very thin compared to later plate armors but pretty comparable to a 14th century coat of plates, and with the same benefit of partially overlapping plates. Overall it seems either suit would provide good protection against cuts, thrusts, and arrows, comparable to iron or low-quality steel mail against the former and superior (due to solid construction) against the latter two. This armor, while used by "elites," also appeared to be reasonably common enough that most of said elites could afford it.

All that said: why is it that this armor more or less disappears entirely by the mid-late classical era? Bronze is harder to manufacturer and rarer than iron or even steel, averages about 10% denser than either, and requires foreign trade. I get all that. What I don't get is how complete the disappearance seems to have been when these suits seem to have real benefits over the iron and low-carbon steel mail that came to dominate the scene (plus, you can of course just use both). I would think that it'd stick around in some fashion for elites, but by the time Rome becomes a hegemon it gets consigned to the dustbin of history and never comes back. From the earliest point the Middle Ages are then all mail, all the time (plus some scale, with steel plate and transitional armor making its way in for the last couple centuries).

Or does it? Is the above accurate?

What is the actual reason it disappeared so thoroughly? Was it worse in practice than its paper stats made it look?

I’m not referring to modesty in terms of fashion which is normally how it is discussed, but in terms of nudity in general. I’m assuming before the advent of modern plumbing and building design, functional nudity like changing clothes, bathing, using the bathroom, etc. were fairly routine and commonplace even in the presence of (same gendered) strangers and no one necessarily batted an eye if someone was exposed for necessary and unavoidable (non sexual) reasons. So at what point did we go from nudity being an accepted reality of life to lock the door if you’re using the bathroom or changing your clothes being the general sentiment.

Another shower thought

https://news.gallup.com/poll/8074/Iraq-War-Triggers-Major-Rally-Effect.aspx?utm_source

On march 20, 2003 the gallup polling indicated 76% of Americans approved the decision to go to war in Iraq.

By the next year in spring 2004, polls still showed 60%+ support for going to war in Iraq as the right decision.

What exactly was the public thinking to support this at the start and for over a year?

Hi there, I’m doing a research project on Unit 731 and I’d love to speak to anyone who has an interest in the topic or is familiar with it. Im looking for a historians input, as I’ve researched the topic but I haven’t found adequate primary sources. Thanks!

I was wondering after a novel I was reading mentioned an iceman bringing around ice for the icebox: when did this profession start and how did they manage to make ice especially in summer/how did they store it? Who actually had an icebox?

The decline should obviously be tied to electric refrigirators but maybe something more can be said. Thanks!

I'm probably being petty and I don't know why it bothers me so much it just seems overdone and unnecessary.

Alessandro de’ Medici is often cited as the first black head of state in the western world, would this have been a significant development for black people in Florence at the time? Would news of this travel quickly, or even impacted other black communities in Europe?

​

Apparently DOD is pressing Congress to officially authorize their rebranding. I have seen several articles (like this one! https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6172772-pentagon-pushes-department-war-name/amp/) baldly assert that the Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense in 1949.

I recognize that this is inaccurate on the face of it because the War Department was split into the Department of the Air Force and Department of the Army in 1947; but ASIDE FROM THAT:

Is it more accurate to say that the Department of Defense is descended from the War Department disestablished in 1947 or is it more accurate to say that it is descended from the "National Military Establishment" established in 1947?

I realize this is splitting hairs, but it is getting down to my true question:

Is it in any way accurate to say that renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War while a former Army officer is in charge of it represents the final victory of the Army over their ancient enemy, the Navy?

It seems strange to me, that Wake Island, a small island with a modest force of marines and a large number of civilians, several artillery emplacements, and maybe a dozen fighters, managed to inflict so much damage on the Japanese

I’m not under the illusion that we could’ve held the Philippines indefinitely

But given the large number of American forces in the much greater resources available, I’m really surprised the Philippines wasn’t able to hold out longer than it did

Part of me wonders if MacArthur got off a little easy for the failure of the Philippines. In particular, the destruction of the Air Forces on the island and the attempt to engage the enemy on the beaches as opposed to withdrawing to Baton earlier.

I don’t know if it would have impacted the Japanese invasion of the islands. or the outcome of the course of the war.

My numbers may be off, but it seems to me that MacArthur had 70 times the forces available to him that at Wake Island had.

Prior to the 1998 implementation of statutory paid leave in the UK, paid holiday was determined primarily by individual contracts, trade union agreements, or specific trade board provisions (such as the 1938 Holidays with Pay Act).

​How widespread was paid annual leave for the average full-time and part-time British worker between the 1950s and the 1990s? Did certain industries lag behind, and how did the lack of a universal legal baseline affect working-class employment conditions?

En el imperio romano si un niño nacia con alguna malformacion o discapacidad (o era una niña) podia ser abandonado por su padre,si no se quedaba en la familia

Pero hay discapacidades que no se notan los primeros meses de vida,que pasaba con estos niños que al llegar a cierta edad se notaba que tenian discapacidad? Se les podia abandonar tambien? O eran ocultados?

I’ve come across a lot of literature about pregnancy, childbirth, and baby wearing, but I’m more interested in postpartum accounts of nursing, sleeping, and other day-to-day activities involving early childhood. I’m open to any resources you can point me to, but I’m most interested in information regarding the Northeastern US. Thank you in advance! Please let me know if you have any questions 🙏

I don't know which sub to ask this to, so I'll check in with the historians first. Thank you for your time.

I am thinking of for exemple sir François Gaston de Lévis being commander in chief at the start, instead of having to Wait till Montcalm get shot to get the position.

Several top Nzis killed themselves with cyanide capsules hidden in their teeth. According to Wiki, this is not really a very nice death. Why did they use this poison and not another one, that is more pleasant?