this is a really specific question i have. i know some schools had accelerated med schools during the second world war that lasted until 1945, but what happened after? how long was med school? i’ve seen some things say four years, others eight years.

I get that it was based on the humors theory, but like... people had to notice patients weren't getting better, right? Was there something about the practice that seemed to help in specific cases, or did doctors just have too much invested in the theory to question it? Genuinely curious how that kind of thing persists for centuries.

It's something that I randomly thought about this morning. During the great plague, my city's people quarantined. The gates were shut, however to stop the people inside from starvation, fishermen from another village would bring food to the gates. The people in the city placed the coins in a sort of small stone basin filled with vinegar, because they believed the plague was caused by bad odours. Putting it in vinegar didn't stop the plague, but the social distancing did, because there was no direct person to person contact and prevented the outside villagers from coming in to contact with linen etc that had been contaminated.

Seems like there would be a lot of snakes hidden in the brush. I heard there were cobras out there, I don’t know what other species may have been present.

I want to know how far back a modern American peer or near peer military infantryman would have to go to completely change the tide of a specific battle.

I don't think the modern military infantryman is that much more well equipped than those from Vietnam or Korea to turn a loss into a win, or even as far back as WWI. Machine guns were already a thing, grenades were common, and I don't think an M4A1 carbine is that much better than WWI weapons for one man to change the tide of the war. However, if we go back to the Civil War we are getting to the point that an M4A1 carbine simply outranges and is more accurate than Kentucky rifles that now you can pick off officers from out of range of anything else, and that could do it. If we go back all the way to the Revolutionary war, one man with 2000 rounds and an M4A1 carbine is absolutely shredding the old rank and file musket lines, and I think they would likely be able to turn almost any Continental Army loss into an American win.

I'm going to use American terms as I am American and that's what I know, but I don't want answers limited to America.

What I mean by "average infantryman": an average Joe in their branch of military. In America, I'd say someone below an E4 who is not on track to join a special forces branch and is 2-3 years into their first contract. This person could be from any branch that has infantry, so army or marines.

What "with their kit" means: Whatever is standard for someone in that branch to carry, including primary and secondary firearm (so M4A1 carbine and sig P320 [though I believe that is under investigation, so let's say the baretta that's been in use for the last while instead] for the US army), grenades, armor, medkit, nods, etc. I will add the caveat that their firearms get a couple thousand rounds, not the couple of magazines they currently carry.

Other caveats:

They can only go back as far as their branch, or a direct predecessor in their area, exists. US soldiers can go back to the British army in the French Indian war if that's as far back as you'd need to go. However, the Continental Marines were formed in a bar in 1775 with no direct military predecessor, so no US marines in the French Indian war. France can use the French foreign legion for as long as that has existed, but can take a soldier in the French army as far back as there was a country whose name translates to france that had an army that could be a direct predecessor of the modern French army. My understanding is that the British Army came from the English army, which has existed for over 1000 years, so all of that is fair play. However, there is no direct line, afaik, from the modern Italian military to rome, so that's out.

By completely change the tide of the battle I mean make the losing team win, or turn a draw into a win. An American soldier would have to make the US Continental army with the battle of Bunker Hill, or a French soldier would have to make France win the battle of Agincort.

I'd also like to keep it to specific, well known, military engagements. No saying a Tennessee state trooper would change the outcome of the battle of athens, as that is neither well known nor military. Think something a high school teacher would be likely to mention. The Falkland war is hardly mentioned in America, but I'd bet is in Britain, so a specific battle from the Falkland War is game. Almost no Indian or Chinese wars are taught in American high school, but whatever is common knowledge there is fair game as well.

Obviously I'm not suggesting they would have won, but on two fronts, you could argue the Kar98K.

First, against the Americans, they had a semi-auto M1 Garand as the standard weapon. Not great fighting with a bolt-action.

Secondly, and more importantly, on the Eastern front, especially in Stalingrad where fighting was 10-20 meters, the Red Army had the PPSh that had a fire rate of 1,250rpm.

The STG-44 would be preferable IMO on both fronts but obviously only rolled out near the end, so what/if anything would be different if the gun was there from the start?

I've been researching the development of criminal profiling, particularly the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit and its work interviewing convicted serial killers during the 1970s and 1980s.

Researchers such as John Douglas, Robert Ressler and Ann Burgess studied offenders including Edmund Kemper and David Berkowitz to better understand patterns of criminal behaviour.

I'm interested in understanding how much these interviews actually contributed to the development of modern criminal profiling.

Were the findings from these interviews instrumental in developing investigative techniques, or were similar approaches already emerging through other areas of criminology, forensic psychology and criminal investigation?

I'm also curious about the methodological limitations of this research. Given that some offenders were manipulative or potentially unreliable narrators, how did researchers evaluate the accuracy of their accounts

In antiquity, bronze was used mostly as a practical metal for weapons, tools, architecture, etc. It is a base metal alloy that tarnishes faster than silver, so its use in jewellery may be less desirable. But despite turning skin green, in many civilizations there are examples of bronze jewels to be worn next to the skin, such as rings, bracelets, and necklaces.

Making bronze requires trade with a tin source, and I gathered from this that if you wanted bronze jewellery, you'd be paying quite a bit from the trade, the smithing of the bronze, and then the jeweller's work. Even if it was made from leftover scrap pieces from industrial projects, it is a harder metal to work than silver, gold, or pure copper, especially for fine jewellery, so a custom piece might be costly.

Were there instances in any Bronze Age cultures where bronze jewellery was esteemed for the labour process and its non-functional use? Despite being a base metal alloy, was it considered more valuable than silver or gold jewellery?

Did the fact that the Coalition included long-time Ottoman Rivals like Austria and Russia influence their stance on whether to get involved in the wars at all?

Did the Ottomans see it as a chance to pay the French back for the invasion of Egypt?

Where there cultural and religious rifts between the Muslim, Turkish Ottomans and Christian Europe that played into it?

The college sports system in america is quite similar to what you see in Germany or Spain. Universities like UCLA and USC have multiple sports, can never be moved to another city like a professional american franchise does once in a while, its identity purely local, and community oriented instead of vying for national and global appeal for the sake of profits.

Yet this athletics is based around schools instead of neighborhoods.

Most movies focus on the suffering of the slaves themselves. But slavery depressed the wages and civil liberties of working class whites. Only the slaveowners themselves benefited from slavery. Are there any movies which explore that perspective?

I’m looking for a book that has a comprehensive history of residential electrical equipment. I haven’t found anything that’s encompassing, just old timey manuals or references. Anyone have any links to point me in the right direction? Thank you!

In the ancient near east, especially Persia, could a ruler be stigmatized and face opposition because his mother was a concubine rather than the wife?

Ive read that in Achaemenid Persia, the children of wives were favored above those of concubines in the line of succession. According to answers by historian and independent researcher Trevor Culley, the difference between wives and concubines are that wives had to be Persian, while concubines varied in rank, and those of higher rank were often elite non-persians.

My motivation for this question is because Ive got an idea for a fantasy story which takes place in a world based on ancient Persia. My idea is that the MC, a queen consort, was abused by her husband out of envy because he had been the son of a concubine and not his father's first pick for heir, while both her parents are royalty.

Im not dedicated to making my story completely historically accurate, but when I asked someone who seems to know their stuff about ancient history that my framing is "too modern", that its anachronistic for the ancient near east for a man to be ashamed that his mother was a concubine, because concubines were perfectly legal sexual partners, their children belong to their father's house to whatever they can inherit from him.

They said: "Concubines and primary wives existed for different reasons, one is not "worse" than the other."

My question is more or less a writing question, but I hope its acceptable to ask.

Ive considered that maybe "being ashamed that his mother was a concubine" is a wrong way to frame it. The shame shouldnt really stem from his mother's status, but because ancient Persian rulers needed to demonstrably have royal blood, and if his mother had been the concubine of someone else before his father, that would make his paternity questionable and his claim to the throne more shaky.

An article on Worldhistorydotorg talks about the roles of women in ancient Persia, from the highest status royalty, nobility to working class women. In the Achaemenid empire there were highly-paid female supervisors who received wine and grain for overseeing the work of large groups of subordinates. There was no difference in pay based on gender, only experience and skill.

Pregnant women, however, received higher wages as did new mothers for the first month after the birth of their child. The mother, midwife, and physician attending the birth also received a bonus if the child was male. 

Ive often read that Greeks were amazed at the power and influence Persian women, especially royalty had, whereas Greek women were comparatively more controlled and had less rights. Ancient Athens was often described as more sexist than other greek states, and the reason is commonly attributed to its nature as a democracy of male citizens, where women were barred from voting and therefore official political participation.

Did female skilled, paid workers exist in Athens, and were there female work supervisors?

Hey, I’m doing my history research project on Unit 731. I really want to do it on this topic because it’s rarely spoken about and it’s extremely important.
I’ve found it very hard to find peer reviewed useful sources- especially primary sources. I also haven’t found any historians I could contact (if there are any).

Is anyone able to give a bit of help if they have any knowledge on the topic, or shiro ishii, or even on Japan the years leading up to it. It would be so greatly appreciated. Thanks!

That's a lot of lebensraum. Would he have been successful? Would other countries (Britain, France, USA) have been on Hitler's side, Stalin's side, or neutral?

I read that ancient China* used to be matriarchal, which I've read was determined in part because of the fact that men would move into their wives' familial homes, but be buried after death in their family's homes.

This seems like a somewhat...tenuous conclusion. Is there more evidence to support the assertion that China used to be matriarchal? If so, why did it change?

*This would be more than 5000 years ago, so I honestly don't know if you can say it's "China," but yeah the people living in the area that we refer to as Mainland China today.

So I know the Hanseatic League was basically a confederation of German merchants that wielded a lot of political and economic power. And they kept the roads and seas safe from bandits and pirates. But what I don't know is what their military and navy? Did they have an organized army and fleet or did they hire out mercenaries and privateers to protect their routes and interests?

I've been wondering about the connection between Roman law and medieval serfdom. Roman laws placed certain restrictions on agricultural workers called coloni, including restrictions on leaving the land in some circumstances.

But did medieval serfdom actually develop out of this Roman system, or are we connecting two institutions that only look similar on the surface?

How much of medieval serfdom was inherited from Roman law, and how much emerged later because of changing landownership and the growing power of landlords after the Western Roman Empire declined?

I'd be interested in what historians think about this, especially any good books or sources that discuss the connection.

Salutations. I am about to start teaching twentieth-century US foreign policy to a group of 17-18 year olds. This is not my period, so while I have a basic understanding of 'the facts', I am missing 'the story'(/'stories'), as it were.

What are the seminal works of historical interpretation I might look to for inspiration here? Are there any historians of the period who you think write in a way that might be more accessible to teenagers? Not 'dumbed-down' per se, just engagingly written.

Thank you very much for your time!

I can imagine that having a nation bomb yours to smithereens, then assist in rebuilding it, then staying indefinitely, might be a tough subject to grapple with, but I am curious if anyone has insight. Thanks

I get that they were flex pieces and showed off wealth, but I'm curious about the actual logic. Were they mostly for the church and clergy, or did nobles display them differently? Seems like a lot of effort for something so few people would ever see.

- Baghdad fell to the Mongols under Hulagu Khan in 1258 CE.

• Al-Andalus came to an end in 1492 CE, when the Emirate of Granada surrendered to the Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile.

Over the 234 years between these two events, did any Andalusian scholars or chroniclers write about the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate? How did the people of al-Andalus react to the fall of Baghdad?

I haven't been able to find much on this subject, except for the possible writings of Ibn Saʿīd al-Maghribī (1214–1286 CE), but that alone is certainly not enough.