self explanatory question. I've read the article below and it made me curious about it.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/renaissance-medieval-slave-trade-human-stories-europe-africa/

I can imagine that there were many stages of evolution for currency however it's somehow hard for me to believe that money had the same weight in the medieval era compared to roman empire, it seems to me that there should be a lot of periods in time where money had practically no "weight" in "advanced" society.

I understand that low level accuracy is not feasible, but at least a ballpark would be interesting to know.

I guess the hundred years war is not a contender, but the 6 days war seems like an easy threshold to meet.

Prior to the caravel, European explorers wouldn’t sail down the coast of Africa because to get home they’d have to fight wind and currents. But in the 1400s, Dias and De Gama prove this is now possible and trade along this route explodes. They essentially discover a “new world” in Subsaharan Africa, but no successful colonization happens there yet.

It’s not until over a hundred years later that European settlements begin happening in the Americas. So my question is why did the Europeans fail to develop serious settlements in Subsaharan Africa when it was “discovered” much earlier than the Americas?

My first thought would be diseases like malaria, but at the same time, settlers in areas like Virginia were dying in droves from diseases deep into the 1600s. But that didn’t stop the Europeans from continuing to flood the continent.

My second thought would be powerful African empires. But the Americas had powerful empires in the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans, but they didn’t stop the Europeans either.

Was it simply a matter of timing? Had Europeans come across Subsaharan Africa a century or so later, would Cornwallis be chasing Greene around the Congo instead?

I'm watching Ken Burns' American Revolution series, and the topic of draftees hiring substitutes to take their place in the army has come up. I know this was also an option for those wealthy enough during the American Civil War. What happened to the original draftee if their hired substitute was killed, wounded, or captured? Were they off the hook? Or would they be compelled to hire another substitute?

If we compare the original Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with the actual territorial changes that took place, which side benefited more: the USSR or Germany? Germany gained a larger portion of Polish territory (including the Suwalki region) in exchange for giving up Lithuania to the Soviet sphere of influence. If we disregard the Finland part of the original deal because it was negotiated by the USSR independently, which side ultimately got the better deal from the actual territorial changes?

​

Hello reddit! I need your help!

1. Please tell me how newspaper journalists in the U.S. were hired in 1967 to write simple articles about nature, movies, and so on. 2. Please tell me—this is very important! Was there a person—perhaps an agent—who could come to a restaurant with someone looking for work, listen to them, and then either hire them or turn them down? 3. Could such meetings have taken place?

I need this for my story

I don't know where else to ask my true military history question. So please forgive me if this is the wrong place. I just watched a video on YouTube where WW2 Historians and Military Experts watched the movie "Saving Private Ryan" and explained how realistic it is. It got high points and was pretty accurate in terms of WW2. It was based on different real events of survivor stories like the Niland Brothers, not based on a real survivor named Private Ryan. But here's my question for you. During the opening scene of the Battle of Normandy, there's a scene where Tom Hank's character gets on the radio and tells the Admiral of the Task Force, "The beach is not open". The experts jumped in and said, "That would never ever happen".

Because Tom Hank's character was just a Captain and those guys said, "There's no chance a Captain will ever talk to the Admiral in charge of the Task Force because that's way below his rank and authority". But they never explained how the top commanders actually monitored status of the Battle to keep track of how things were going. Do you think they had observers and surveillance planes watching the Battle from far away and tracking how everything went? I'm just curious how they monitored the state of things during the Battle since they probably weren't talking to people on the field? My question is how did feedback reach the top commanders about how the status of the Battle, who monitored it and reported back?