texts: Inquiry into the nature and roots of the temporal power of the Roman Catholic Pope:

texts:
The Roman Catholic Pope is head of both the Roman Catholic Church: "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church", and a head of state: "Sovereign of the Vatican City State". Official list of Papal titles

At what point in history did the head of the Church become a temporal, as well as spiritual leader? What is the historical basis for this temporal power? What is its nature? Is the Pope effectively a monarch - King of the Vatican State? In matters of the Church, there is a 'Papal Doctrine of Infallibility' - does this also apply to the Pope's temporal role? Is he an absolute monarch?

In short: What was is the nature and history of the office "Sovereign of the Vatican City State" and its historical predecessors.

I realize there is undoubtedly a long and detailed history here, but an overview of the 'bullet points' would be nice - I have very little knowledge about this topic, which I find most intriguing.


texts: When did blackouts occur in Cairo during WW2?

texts:
In what date was Cairo blackout lifted in WW2?
Was the date celebrated in the following years?
And, not less important: what notable events were in December 21st 1944?
A little background:
Someone I got to know was born in Cairo on the 21st of December 1944. He said it was the night when lights were turned on.
Now that puzzles me: The battle of El-Alamein ended in Nov 1942. On 21.12.1942 Rommel was forced out of Libya, too. But it was 1942, not 1944! On Dec 1944 Hitler had just central Europe. It's hard to believe that Egypt was blacked out for 2 years and a half (probably since the fall of Tobruk).
On the other hand, it can be that the dates are wrong. But he remembers himself as a child in kindergarten back in 1949. It's hard to believe that a seven years old child thinks he's five.
What is the solution for this riddle? I don't know. So I suspect that the occasion of pushing Rommel's bombers off-range at 21.12.1942 was celebrated years later, including 21.12.1944.
Thanks.


texts: How were Kurds involved (or not) in the invasion of Normandy?

texts:
In defending his decision to withdraw from northern Syria and cease supporting Kurdish fighters in the face of the 2019 Turkish invasion, Donald Trump said:

  [The Kurds] didn’t help us in the second world war, they didn’t help us with Normandy as an example ...

What exactly is Trump talking about? In what way were Kurds involved, or not involved, in the invasion of Normandy? Was there a sizable Kurdish population in France, or a Kurdish contingent of the Allied Powers which refused to support the operation, or something else?


texts: Why didn't Ronald Reagan become Republican candidate for the President of the USA in 1976?

texts:
I'd really like to know, how did it happen that Ronald Reagan lost the Republican Party presidential primaries in 1976, against Gerald Ford.

It's easier for me to understand that he could fail in the presidential primaries of 1968, with smaller experience, weaker surname and (imho) stronger opponent. But why did it happen in 1976?

According to Wikipedia entry and its cited sources, there were many arguments against Ford that were used during the campaign. First of all, Ford was in the administration of Richard Nixon, what already speaks for itself. He even grant a presidential pardon to Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate affair. Also his negotiations about secession of Panama Canal were more in the Democrats' style, and were later continued by Carter, to which Ford finally lost the election. There were also other accusations, like the current situation in Vietnam or signing of Helsinki Accords, what at that time also sounds to me more like Democrats than Republicans.

From my transatlantic perspective and lack of deeper knowledge about America in the 70s, it looks like it should finish with a quick K.O.

I also wonder if the fact that Reagan got divorced in 1949 (and was later elected as the first divorced president of the USA), could be one of the reasons for that. I mean, he was a candidate of the conservative wing of Republicans, which I think could care about such fact. Did Ford try to play this card at all?

Or was it the fact that Reagan was in the Democratic Party before the WW2? What were the main reasons of his fail?


texts: Did the first emperor of China die of mercury poisoning?

texts:
Did the first emperor Qin Shi Huang die of mercury poisoning? If so, how do we know? I've seen lots of claims that he did (and claims that he didn't), but no citation explaining what primary source backs this up. It is known he ingested mercury and modern archaeologists have detected lots of mercury around his tomb, but that doesn't quite prove he died of mercury poisoning.

If Qin Shi Huang's cause of death is unknown, are there good sources to cite for this?

Edit (background research): I understand that much (most?) of our historical record on Qin Shi Huang comes from the Shiji (史记). But I was under the impression that the Shiji was written before the discovery that mercury was poisonous, so it's implausible that the Shiji attributes Qin Shi Huang's death to mercury poisoning. (I may be wrong and mercury's toxicity was known far earlier.)

I believe the idea he ingested mercury comes from the importance of cinnabar (which contains inert mercury) in ancient immortality elixers.

More importantly, the Shiji covers Qin Shi Huang's life in this chapter but "朱", the character for cinnabar, never appears. Nor does "汞", the character for mercury. As the Shiji was written in classical Chinese, it's possible cinnabar was referred to by a different name I'm not familiar with.

If I understand it correctly (which I may not), the sentence about him dying is

  及至秦王，续六世之馀烈，振长策而御宇内，吞二周而亡诸侯，履至尊而制六合，执棰拊以鞭笞天下，威振四海。

Which just says he fought for two weeks before dying. (Edit 2: My reading of this that quote is garbage.) Nothing about mercury or cinnabar. Am I missing something about the Shiji or does the belief he died from mercury poisoning come from some other source?


texts: Why was Germany held accountable for WW1?

texts:
The Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to accept all responsibility for the war.

If the war was initially due to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by Serbian assassins, why did the Treaty of Versailles hold Germany responsible? Are there documents that establish the reasoning behind holding Germany accountable?

Is it because they were the first to invade neutral territories?

Are there competing claims/narratives?


texts: Did the Germans consider an amphibious landing for Fall Blau?

texts:
In the operation Fall Blau (Case Blue) the German Wehrmacht advanced towards the Don river, and then sent Army Group A into the Caucasus region to take the oil fields in the region.

They managed to take Maikop, yet the Soviets destroyed the production facilities.

If we look at the map below, we see the successive stages of the operation. However, I am asking myself whether it would have been possible to land forces on the eastern coast of the Sea of Azov? This would have given the defenders much less time to destroy oil production facilities.

Has there been any discussion in the German Wehrmacht leadership about an amphibious component for the Fall Blau?
Taking a port at the coast of the Sea of Azov may even helped the dire logistical situation of Army Groups A and B, or was the Black Sea off-limits for German shipping?

Source: Wikipedia


texts: How long did Adolf Hitler serve on the front lines as an infantryman in WWI before becoming a courier?

texts:
In Word War I Hitler served in France with the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 (1st Company) before being promoted from Schütze (Private) to Gefreiter (Lance Corporal) and assigned to be a regimental message-runner.
My Question: How long did Hitler serve on the front lines as an infantryman prior to becoming a regimental message-runner?
This article says private Hitler's and his regiment saw battle during the First Battle of Ypres (33 days). But doesn't say how long his regiment or Hitler himself participated in the battle.

Military career of Adolf Hitler
Hitler's regiment entered the battle with 3,600 men and at its end mustered 611. By December Hitler's own company of 250 was reduced to 42.

I'm not asking how long he was in the service, before becoming a courier. I'm asking how much combat experience he had accumulated on the front lines as an infantryman prior to becoming a courier.

From Comments:

Sempaiscuba: Isn't this covered in the Wikipedia article? Essentially, for the duration of the First Battle of Ypres.

The wikipedia article Military career of Adolf Hitler doesn't mention how long hitler was deployed on the front lines. He could have served for 1 hour or the entire 33 days of that battle. His survival when 84% of his company did not could be explained by his absence for a good amount of those 33 days. How long was he actually stationed at the front? The wikipedia article First Battle of Ypres doesn't mention Hitler at all.


texts: How expensive were castles? And how were the costs distributed?

texts:
In, Castles, Battles, Bombs: How Economics Explained Military History, I came across this passage :

"The cost lay mostly in direct labor cost, as most labor had to be paid. (In contrast, raw material cost does not seem to have been much of an issue."

It was only mentioned in passing and I wondered if it were true.

I just seemed strange to me that in 1000-1300, labor markets were competitive. Was it simply the sheer labor involved relative to their resource the cause? Were average monarchy's real net worth less unequal than I had imagined; the 1% rich today about 30 mill USD while the bottom less than 1USD income, might the monarch of the past be maybe a few thousand times the peasant instead of millions?


texts: When did Mesoamericans stop using their native weapons?

texts:
Indigenous warriors of today's Mexico used atlatl spear-throwers and obsidian-bladed hand weapons such as tepoztopilli and macuahuitl. According to Bernal Díaz del Castillo, these arms were formidable in battle against the Spanish, but by the end of the colonial period, they seem to have gone out of use. By 1810, when Miguel Hidalgo led an effort for Mexico's independence, the mostly indigenous army he raised had barely any arms, and no account I have read mentioned any indigenous weaponry.

When and why did indigenous Mexicans stop making the effective weapons of their antecedents? What was the last conflict in which native weapons were a factor?


texts: What is the origin of how people are arranged in Mass/Worship Service?

texts:
I've noticed in most Christian gatherings, such as Mass, "Worship Service", etc., the arrangement of the participants follows a general pattern, regardless of denomination:

1) The congregants, or laity, are arranged parallel lines, or pews, facing the same direction

2) There is a divide in the congregants, or aisle through the pews, perpendicular to the lines of congregants, extending from the back to the front of the space

3) The Priest/clergy/minister is at the front and center of the congregants, facing them, sometimes elevated, sometimes at or in front of an altar.

What is the historical origin of this format of Christian worship? Is it from Roman or Jewish religious traditions? I also note it is similar to the format for traditional educational settings (classroom), political/military addresses, and theatrical productions. Is the origin in one of these? Is the format of gathering significantly different in non-Western religions and cultures?


texts: Why were slave owners even offered compensation via the 1837 Act if they'd lost the power in parliament to stop abolition in 1833?

texts:
The British government paid out £20 million to slave owners in 1837 as compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves. There seems to be plenty of documentation on the fact that it happened but I can't find out why it was paid.

For example, good old Wikipedia states:

  Up until then, sugar planters from rich British islands such as the
  Colony of Jamaica and Barbados were able to buy rotten and pocket
  boroughs, and they were able to form a body of resistance to moves to
  abolish slavery itself. This West India Lobby, which later evolved
  into the West India Committee, purchased enough seats to be able to
  resist the overtures of abolitionists. However, The Reform Act 1832
  swept away their rotten borough seats, clearing the way for a majority
  of members of the House of Commons to push through a law to abolish
  slavery itself throughout the British Empire.

If enough power had been removed that the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 could go through then it seems possible their claims could have been ignored. Since they weren't I can surmise that without the carrot of compensation the slavery lobby would've fought harder against the Act and it may have failed but I can't find anything to substatiate it. Perhaps it's simply that such a law could not or cannot be made as it would violate some principle of legality of property - if the UK government made ownership of any other item illegal I can imagine compensation would have to be paid.

As you can see, these are all speculations.

If anyone has any pointers to info or some insights, I would be very grateful.

Edit: I'm not looking for answers (or comments) along the lines of "they were paid because there was an Act saying they will be paid". I mentioned the existence of the 1837 Act in the title!


texts: In Viking combat, how much damage was done using the shield?

texts:
A while back I was watching some show on cable that was centered on recreating ancient combat (sorry, don't recall which of the many clones it was).

One thing they stressed was that Vikings did NOT use the bladed weapon as an offensive weapon and shield as purely defensive - instead they used the shield as offensive weapon as well - slamming, using shield edge for strikes etc...

Is there any historical research on just how much offense was done using the shield? (e.g. amount of casualties inflicted by shields vs. bladed weapons? # of strikes with each?) in Viking combat? If so, does it support the show's point?


texts: Did the Seljuk consider themselves Roman?

texts:
I recently learned that the Seljuk state in Anatolia was officially called Sultanate of Rûm, where Rûm means Rome. Does that mean that Seljuks considered themselves to be cultural heirs of Rome?

Also according to Wikipedia even Turks in the Ottoman Empire would call themselves Roman:

  In the early modern period, an educated, urban-dwelling Turkish-speaker who was not a member of the military-administrative class would often refer to himself neither as an Osmanlı nor as a Türk, but rather as a Rūmī (رومى), or "Roman"

But I do not understand why that was.

Was it simply because geographically the area was covered by Eastern Roman Empire? Was that because only ruling class was Seljuk and later Turkish and populace was still "Roman"? Or did the Seljuks and Turks consider themselves to be cultural heirs to Rome?

Also as was pointed to me in comments, the Wikipedia page for the Sultanate of Rum states that:

  "The name Rûm was a synonym for Greek, as it remains in modern Turkish, although it derives from the Arabic name for ancient Rome ..."

But wasn't this caused by Arabs and other middle-eastern cultures equating Greeks with Romans since the official name of Byzantine empire which was ethnically Greek was "Basileía Rhōmaíōna/Imperium Romanum"?


texts:
How did the Egyptian engineers of the Third and Fourth Dynasty construct the Pyramids and Sphinx without modern science and mathematics?

What was the "state of the art" in engineering, science, and mathematics in Ancient Egypt when the Sphinx and the Giza Pyramids were built during the Third and Fourth Dynasties? How did they accomplish these engineering feats without modern engineering knowledge & tools? What techniques did they actually use that were successful?

The Great Pyramid of Giza was built to house the remains of the Pharaohs and thus meant to last forever. How did their techniques contribute to the permanency of the Giza structures?


texts: Was the French philosopher Pierre Bayle a Calvinist believer or an atheist?

texts: European Enlightenment: The 17th century's most read philosopher produced sharp and honest literature. Yet until today the question seems to be unanswered where he really belonged (Bayle enigma).


texts:
Were Alexander the Great and Hephaestion lovers?
Since there are no historical shreds of evidence that Alexander regarded Hephaestion as someone more than a friend, are the modern claims only based on the fact that said he was only "defeated by Hephaestion's thighs"?
Edit: I'd be glad to know the reason behind down-voting this question.
By saying "lovers", I meant to ask if they were in love with each other. But essentially, I meant to ask if they were emotionally attached, deeply affectionate towards each other like a guy and girl in love are, i.e., if they had platonic love. (Initially, I didn't question their sexual relationship with each other but it seems (it may be) that in cases of homosexual beings, friendship can only be distinguished from love when they are sexually intimate or when they explicitly state that they're in love with each other.)


texts: What is the first known instance of gift-giving backfiring across cultures?

texts:
What is the first time known that two cultures, unfamiliar to each other, exchanged gifts in good faith, only to find that the other interpreted it differently? In other words, when did gifts first cause conflict, that we know of?

I am new to History; please let me know of any improvements I should make to this question.


texts: Besides Mexico, who was considered as a potential ally of the Central Powers?

texts:
The Zimmermann telegram to the embassy in Mexico outright suggests that German Empire is trying to court Mexico as an ally in the Great War:

  We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace.
  Signed, ZIMMERMANN

Were there other countries that the Central Powers approached outright in the hope of an alliance? Maybe Spain or Sweden in the Europe? Countries in South America?

Just a note: I'm asking about approached independent at that time countries, not promising independence to various cultural regions under Allies occupation (i.e. Russian-occupied Poland and Ukraine).


texts: Were titles in the British Peerage ever connected to land grants, and if so, when did they stop being connected to land?

texts:
I have been trying to understand the peerage systems of Britain as of late, and I have a number of questions.
Let's assume we're in the middle ages. A baron-in-chief, Thomas Smith, holds a number of manors already, but a descendant of King William the Conqueror, King Example, wants to create him the Earl of Gaunt (an example title). Would King Example create him Earl of Gaunt because he already holds titles in the shire/county of Gaunt? If not, would King Example create him Earl of Gaunt by granting him more manors in Gaunt? Would the elevation of a baron to earl even require the granting of more manors?
And for the second part of the title.... my understanding is that the kings of England would summon powerful baron-in-chiefs, aka landholders, to their councils. Eventually, for a reason I do not know, a king eventually summoned a man who was not a baron-in-chief, and through this summons, he was created a title in the peerage, which marked the beginning of the end of peerage titles being associated with land and the beginning of the peerage being personal dignities instead. Is my understanding of history correct, here? Could someone elaborate with the specific details as to who was the king to create the first landless peer as described?
Additionally... is "peerage" merely a term for the nobility of a country? I have seen them used somewhat interchangeably. Could I refer to King William the Conqueror's baron-in-chiefs as peers despite their only title (at the time) being baron? Or could I use the term "peerage" to describe the lords of an independent Wales or Ireland, or France or Castile?


texts: How was the USA able to win naval battles in the Pacific?

texts: I have been researching the battles in the Pacific and it seems like in every engagement the USA was outnumbered or outgunned. Especially with the loss of the Pearl Harbor fleet, what made naval battles successful for the USA? I know at Midway the US recon was better and decrypted Japanese naval codes but were there any other factors that gave the US an advantage in sea battles?


texts: Why were type bar designs so popular compared to type ball/wheel designs for manual typewriters?

texts:
During the era of the typewriter there were a few kinds of basic designs. The (afaik) most well known is the type bar design, where each key is connected to an individual type bar that hits the paper when the key is pressed, each type bar carries the uppercase and lowercase shapes of a single letter. The other variant is the type wheel or type ball design (or generically the single type element design), where a single ball or wheel shaped element contains all the letters. The mechanism rotates and/or tilts the wheel/ball before it strikes the paper so that the right letter is imprinted.

Type wheel/balls have some advantages over type bars: They cannot get stuck, and the entire wheel/ball can be replaced to change the font. The Blickensderfer, one of the early wheel operated typewriters, is often described as being much simpler than other contemporary (often type bar operated) machines, containing only a quarter of the moving parts of other contemporary typtewriters, so the type wheel mechanism appears to not necessarily be more complex than type bars.

During the last decades of the typewriter era, the electric type ball operated Selectric machines where very popular as higher end typewriters, but I have the impression that type bars were more common in manually operated lower end machines.

There seem to be clear technical advantages for type wheel/ball designs. Why were type bars so popular for manual typewriters?

(This question makes a few assumptions, which may be wrong. Please tell me if that is the case.)

edit: Clarified the question that it is about manual typewriters, add pictures


texts: Did the Temperance Movement affect the illegalization of cannabis?

texts: Considering cannabis was being illegalized in many states during the time the Temperance Movement succeeded in their prohibition of alcohol, it seems likely to me that they had some role in it? If they did, could you point to any of these instances?


texts: Travelling from England to China in 1810

texts: I'd like to know what would have been the most common route to travel from England to Canton, China, in 1810 and how long the journey would have taken.


texts: In a broad sense, what are the reasons for the history-spanning persecution of Jews?

texts:
Throughout history, Jews have almost always been persecuted in every culture they try to co-exist with. The act is so common that we even have a term for it - anti-semitism - even though semites aren't all Jewish. In other words, what did the Jews ever do throughout history to deserve all the hate?

Of course, there is no simple answer which can be typed up in a few paragraphs. So I'm just looking for some broad, greatly summarized reasons to help me get a basic understanding of all the hatred.

Note: I am not talking about Zionism or the actions of the state of Israel. Persecution of Jews go way back before the 20th century.


texts: Why did other German political parties disband so fast when Hitler was appointed chancellor?

texts:
Not long after Hitler was appointed chancellor, opposition groups began to shut down. He, of course, had already criminalised the Communist KPD and alleged sympathisers, but I was astonished to learn that many other parties closed themselves voluntarily in the weeks before Hitler shut down opposition via legal edict.

The DDP, DNVP and DVP closed themselves down at the end of June and the Catholic Zentrum and its allies in the early days of July. The DNVP was fairly close to the Nazi agenda and the Zentrum also had sympathies in that direction and were apparently losing membership. However, in the election after Hitler had been confirmed as Chancellor, the Nazis still only won around 44% of the vote.

It would seem at this point, then, that there was still a significant number of Germans - perhaps close to half - who did not support the Nazis. Why, then, were other parties happy to close voluntarily? Was it fear of political violence, given that the Nazis essentially controlled the army and police as well as their own paramilitary wing? Was there a real sense that German political sympathy was shifting overwhelmingly behind the Nazis? Or something else?


texts: Where and how did the concept of "incorporation" originate?

texts: Wikipedia states that "The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347". Is this actually the earliest instance of incorporation, though? How did the practice come to exist?


texts: Any information about what William Marshall (Guillaume le Marechal) did in the Holy Land?

texts:
William Marshall, Knight, Earl, Justiciar and Regent was an extremely important person in British History. His history is well recorded except for one period of his life when he went to the Holy Land and served with the Knights Templar for two years from circa 1183 to 1186.

His service must have been first rate as he was idolized by the Templars after that; for example, the Master of the London Commandery asked on his deathbed to be buried alongside "the Good Knight" (William) so that he might, in William's company, be more certain of entry into heaven. I would be very grateful for the smallest scrap of information on anything that refers to Marshall during this period.


texts: What were the rights and freedoms of Amir Temur's empire citizens?

texts:
Amir Temur, aka Tamerlane, was a strong personality that managed to build an empire between 1365 and 1405. The trade flourished in many cities along with science.
Institutes: political and military that is related to the topic of society regulation, seems to be vague in that regard.
I want to understand what rights and freedoms various middle and lower class people possed in the empire of Amir Termur. It can include the right to travel to Mecca without paying taxes or maybe costs were paid by the government.


texts: Why were bloody religious wars so incredibly frequent in Europe in the century following the Reformation?

texts: Beginning in 1520, right after Martin Luther's Reformation, bloody religious wars began that kept recurring almost yearly for over a century. The Reformation's rapid spread drew battle lines accross Europe as Catholic armies were fielded to crush the Protestants into submission, engulfing the continent in intermittent war from the 1520s to the 1640s. But what was the real cause of these recurring wars? In other words, "Why not live and let live?"


texts: Was the Gulf War 1990 a complete surprise, or was a military build up evident?

texts:
I understand that Iraq had disputes with Kuwait about slant drilling of an oil field, borders of some islands and of course in general about OPEC oil production quotas. But none of this was new in the Summer of 1990.

Was the Iraqi military preparations for the invasion apparent during the days before? Or did they have enough forces in readiness anyway?


texts: German submarine force ceasefire on May 4 1945

texts:
Many sources say that a general ceasefire order was issued by Doenitz to German submarines on patrol on May 4, 1945. We know that the German instrument of surrender was signed in the early morning (Europe) on May 7, and took effect late on May 8. Why the submarines have been put out of action 4 days before, especially as they were the only really valuable fighting arm of Nazis by that point?

My guess that it was because of the VLF transmitters guiding and coordinated their actions have been overrun by advancing Allies, like the Goliath transmitter, making communication with submerged boats impossible. But this is just a guess. Does anyone have a better idea? Also, when exactly did the Germans lose their final VLF transmitter, making any coordinated action by the boats impossible?


texts: 19th century cabins: why were beds off the ground? Or weren't they?

texts:
I know films and historical accuracy are, unfortunately, enemies, but a couple of years ago I saw a film that included a family living in close quarters in a cabin and they all slept on cots on the floor to the exception of the parents.

Recently, I looked through some pictures of real life (old) cabins and they featured bed structures that kept the mattresses / cots off the floor.

Example 1

example 2

Was there a reason for this? Was sleeping on a cot on a cabin floor too cold (at least in Canadian and Alaskan winters) in real life? Or would big families have beds only for some and the rest would really sleep on the floor?


texts: Traditionally, have land owners been debtors while traders have been creditors?

texts:
I am reading Bertrand Russell's The History of of Western Philosophy and, in a chapter entitled Aristotle's Politics, Russell gives a brief history of the philosophical opinion of loaning money at interest. He begins the discussion as follows:

From Greek times to the present day, mankind, or at least the
economically more developed portion of them, have been divided into
debtors and creditors; debtors have disapproved of interest, and
creditors have approved of it. At most times, landowners have been
debtors, while men engaged in commerce have been creditors. The views
of philosophers, with few exceptions, have coincided with the
pecuniary interest of their class. Greek philosophers belonged to, or
were employed by, the landowning class; they therefore disapproved of
interest.

I would like to understand the basis for the claim that at most times landowners have been debtors, while men engaged in commerce have been creditors. Russell seems to think this is obvious, but I, admittedly as a newer student of history, will admit to some reservations.
Is there any historical backing to this claim?


texts:
For the past 6 months or so (probably longer), I've heard a lot about ISIS, and I know that they are involved in military actions in Syria, but I am still confused as to what their true purpose is. If possible, I would like to know:
1. How ISIS formed
2. Why they are involved in the Syrian Civil War
3. Why they are recruiting American teenagers
4. What is their true "goal" (as in, why did they form in the first place)

If anyone can answer even one of these questions, that would be great. Thanks!


texts: Where was Emperor Hirohito during the Kyūjō incident?

texts: Where was Emperor Hirohito during Kyūjō incident ? Did he came in physical contact with the rebels, did they actually tried to dissuade him from surrender ?


texts: Did international laws on wars of conquest change in 1945?

texts:
From a comment on what victors can do to losers in a war:

  Since this is a history site, we should also note that wars of conquest are no longer legal after 1945, so "most of history" no longer applies.

I know that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan surrendered in 1945, but I'm not aware of international law changing that year. What changes, if any, happened that year?


texts: What do Florence, Genoa, Milan and Venice have in common?

texts:
This building, located in Genoa, Italy, displays the emblems of four cities: from left to right Florence, Genoa, Milan, Venice.

It is currently an university building, but I don't know how long it has been, nor what was it used for before.

What do these cities, and not other cities, have in common? I.e. what might be the reason for picking those cities?

they all are regional capitals, but so are many others
they all have universities, but so do many others
Genoa and Venice were marine republics, but the other two aren't
Florence has been an Italian capital, but the other three weren't
I bet they can all be considered big or important cities, but, again, so many others

In particular, it stands out there's no Turin, nor Bologna.

The date, unless I'm mistaken, is 1914.


texts: Jurisdiction in German occupied territories after WW II

texts:
Who's seen Black Book?

At the end, after the war, one of the German Generals requests that Hauptsturmführer Muntze be executed under Article 153 for treason.

What is Article 153? Been trying to google it but nothing's coming up.

The General says that British military law does recognise jurisdiction of German military tribunals in the field, allowing the Germans to discipline their own men, even after the war.

Apparently, the order was issued by General Fowkes?

Anybody know more about this law, and why would the Allies allow the enemy to discipline their own men, when at that point they were in charge?

Wouldn't the British military have been able to overrule such an execution?


texts: What did Kennedy know about Soviet missiles during the Cuban missile crisis?

texts: After the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US declassified reports showed that the USSR only had four operational ICBMs in October 1962, notwithstanding contrary rhetoric during the 1960 presidential campaign suggesting the Soviets had many more.  When did President Kennedy know this? What agency made the estimate and did the Air Force an Joint Chiefs acknowledge the estimate as accurate? Was the lower estimate a factor in the president's decision?


texts: Why do soldiers keep their right hand inside the uniform blouse?

texts:
I don't know if generalising this kind of military culture, if there is one, to other countries is true but what I want to know is that why soldiers keep their right hand inside.

An example:


texts: Does Grant's use of attrition tactic support his reputation as a general?

texts:
In 1864, General Ulysees S. Grant began the "final campaign" against Richmond using a war of attrition. That's because of the Union's 2-to-1 numerical advantage against a qualitatively superior Confederate force (better led and fighting on home ground).  In a series of battles (Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor), Grant advanced about 60 miles in one month, at the cost of about 60,000 men, roughly a 2-to-1 loss ratio (compared to about 30,000 for the Confederates.)

When these tactics earned him the sobriquet of "Butcher Grant," his retort was, "I'll fight it out along these lines if it takes all summer."

Once his proximity to Richmond reduced the Confederates' capacity for maneuver, the Union loss ratio went down to 3- to -2, and ultimately, 1-to -l, spelling doom for the outnumbered Confederates.

Does Ulysses S. Grant's using such "attrition" tactics help or hinder winning  the war?


texts: Why was the War of the League of Cambrai such a hot mess?

texts:
The War of the League of Cambrai was fought from 1508-1516 by...basically everyone who had any interest in Italy at the time (which was most of Europe).  It was a mess:

It's been described by one period expert as "the least comprehensible war I’ve ever studied."
Here on the stack, it's been mentioned that "most factions within the war were at one time allies and at others enemies."
The list of belligerents on the Wikipedia page has to do some amusing contortions to correctly represent what side each country was on at any given time.

You get the idea.

The aforementioned Wikipedia article does a respectable job of covering when various states switched sides in the war, but is a little light on why.  What was it that caused this war, in particular, to be so messy and confusing?


texts: Why are there laws that are used to limit how long a house can be in a family?

texts:
Wikipedia on the "Rule against Perpetuities" says that it was sometimes used to restrict how long one family could hold onto a, possibly aristocratic, estate.

Lastly, the rule against perpetuities was sometimes used to prevent very large, possibly aristocratic estates from being kept in one family for more than one or two generations at a time.

That sounds very strange to me. I've never heard of laws saying how long a family can pass down things.
Or is that just an unconventional use? If so, who's used it that way, and why?


texts: What was the original cost of a Sharps Rifle?

texts: In 1850, when the Sharps Rifle was made, how much did it cost?


texts: Where did the stereotype of Asians being bad drivers came from and how did it expand? (if it's not an internet phenomenon)

texts:
I'd like to know the historic start of such a stereotype and how it expanded, if it is really something that comes from before and it's not just some internet phenomenon (which may be).

I'm linking these 2 web pages that speak about this myth:

Myth-busting the ‘Bad Asian Driver’ myth: Car insurance rates don’t lie

Dueling Stereotypes: Bad Asian Drivers, Good At Everything

I've also checked that at least the first five pages of results with the term "bad Asian drivers" in google seems to mostly show web pages that seem to comment about this myth, so it looks like it is expanded.

The phenomenon seems to be localized mostly in North America, mostly in the USA.

As time frame we can consider since the first Asians went to North America in a noticeable amount and cars where easily available for people (I guess around late 60's after the 1965 Immigration act) to nowadays.


texts: When were confederate veterans barred from office and voting after the civil war?

texts:
The Wikipedia article on the Wilmington coup of 1898 has this:

In 1868, North Carolina ratified the 14th Amendment, resulting in the
recognition of Reconstruction, and in the state legislature and
governorship falling under Republican rule. Democrats greatly resented
this "radical" change, which they deemed as being brought about by
blacks, Unionist carpetbaggers, and race traitors. Freedmen were
eager to vote, tending to support the Republican Party that had
emancipated them and given them citizenship and suffrage.
For a temporary period[when?] Confederate veterans were barred from
office and voting. Many white Democrats had been embittered since the
Confederacy's defeat. Insurgent veterans joined the Ku Klux Klan
(KKK), which orchestrated considerable violence at elections in order
to suppress the black vote.

When and how were Confederate veterans barred from office and voting in NC after the Civil war?


texts: Are there any good examples in earth history of two religions co-existing?

texts:
Specifically I am looking at a situation where:

Religion A is:

Monotheistic
Hierarchical (single leader atop the organization)
At least slightly expansionist though not necessarily by force of arms

Religion B is:

Polytheistic
Tribal in nature so each tribe has its own religious leader
Internally focused

The two religions must:

Have coexisted for a significant time frame with no organized oppression of each other.  Meaning no Jihad's, Crusades, Force Conversions.  Isolated, non-sanctioned violence/conflict is fine

Time frame should be 100+ years of getting along.

Existed both religiously and politically and interacted on a regular basis.  This doesn't mean government interaction just people (basically are they geographically near each other allowing trade and such).

Notes:

Please provide examples from 1700 AD and earlier.  Basically nothing after the Renaissance, I don't want industrial and modern era.
If such a situation does not come to mind please post the next best scenario/example.
Do not limit yourself to western examples, I am perfectly happy to look at any examples globally.


texts: After the Greek and Rome, democracy died out. So when have this system become popular? Which country were the first to adopt it after Rome? And how did it become so widely used?


texts: When in history do we first have record of steel being used as a material?  I am also interested in both its initial purpose and when it was first used in weapon making.


texts: Where was the ruling seat of East Francia located under Henry the Fowler?

texts: It seems safe to assume that Bavaria wasn't an option as Arnulf the Bad controlled this area throughout Henry's reign.  The only possible candidates that I can find are Memleben (where Henry died) or Wallhausen (where he married Matilda and his son and future king Otto I was possibly born).


texts: How much were telegraphists in the 1950s paid?

texts:
I'm doing some research for a small project, and am having some difficulty finding information on telegraphists as a whole.

The information I'm trying to find is rather specific, and I can't seem to find it anywhere.

In the 1950s, how much would a telegraphist have been paid? I realize that at the time, telegraphy unions were forming, so if some specificity is needed, I'd like to know:

What a railroad telegrapher's average pay was before railroad telegraphers' unions, and
what it was after unions began fighting for higher pay,
what it was in the U.S. military (specifically, in the Navy, if it matters).

I realize these are somewhat specific questions - however, I have no clue where to look to find this information. If anyone could help, it would be appreciated!


texts: Was there a viable alternate supply route to Australia during World War II?

texts:
In the spring of 1942, there was the danger, or at least the fear, that Japan would conquer all of New Guinea, the Solomon islands, and ultimately Samoa, thereby cutting off Australia from American supplies and technical assistance from America's west coast to Australia's southeast coast, and thus "isolating" Australia.

Was there a viable alternate supply route to Perth, Australia on the southwest coast to keep Australia in the war?

(The distance from either Miami or London to Perth through the Cape of Good Hope is over 9,000 miles; from there to Sydney on the southeast coast is another 2,000 miles. From Los Angeles to Sydney would be 7,500 miles, meaning that the "Perth" route would be at least 50% longer.)


texts:
This memorial plaque lists the numbers of Georgians who served in various wars and details the casualties. What I find odd is that for WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf round numbers are given for the participants, whereas for WWII a strangely exact number is given - 324373. The lists of casualties do not appear to be rounded throughout.

Is there an explanation for this oddness?


texts: Who was the first Renaissance cartographer to include rich content in their maps that went beyond spatial points, borders, and location names?

texts:
In other words, which Renaissance cartographer was the first to really enrich their maps with imagery or icons that indicated other attributes about the locations they were mapping, or the people who lived in those locations?

To help this question lend itself to a specific answer, I've updated the question to narrow the focus to the Renaissance, and I'll suggest that the "additional context" provided by the cartographer be anything beyond the physical data points such as spatial coordinates, borders, terrain, & location names.


texts:
Which country can be viewed as the perfect example of "Capitalism"?

That is, which country represents the Capitalism at its peak?


texts: Where is the tomb of Genghis Khan located?

texts: Genghis Khan the great Mongol Ruler conquered most of Eurasia. His empire extended from China to Poland. But there is a mystery where he was buried after his death. It still remains a mystery.


texts: How would Nazi treatment differ between a "half-Jew" and "full Jew"?

texts: I've read in various Holocaust memoirs that the difference between being a "half-Jew" and "full Jew" could mean life or death. Obviously, Nazi treatment of a "half-Jew" was better than a "full Jew", but to what extent? What are some examples of people surviving because of better treatment by Nazis because they were "half-Jews"?


texts: Did the Ptolemaic Egyptians know how old the Pyramids were?

texts:
By the beginning of the Ptolemaic dynasty, the Pyramids of Giza were already some 2200 years old. Significant cultural differences separated the Hellenistic Ptolemies from the Old Kingdom.

Were the Ptolemies still able to accurately date the Pyramids (did they even know who built them)? That is, would Ptolemy I have been able to say that the Great Pyramid was completed by Pharaoh Khufu, 2237 years before he himself became king?


texts: Where was the first European electric tramway operated?

texts:
Many sources agree that the tramway Vevey-Montreux-Chillon, built in 1888 was Switzerland's first and Europe's second electric tramway. However, sources are contradictory on which was the first electric tramway in Europe!

French Wikipedia says it's Sarajevo's tramway.

  Le premier tramway électrique est mis en exploitation à Sarajevo
  (Empire austro-hongrois) en 1885, tandis qu'en Suisse, la première
  ligne (Vevey-Montreux-Chillon), sur la Riviera vaudoise, est ouverte
  en 1888.

However this site about the history of public transportation in Geneva says the first electric tramway was in Berlin.

  C’est en 1881 qu’est mis en service le premier tram électrique du
  monde, à Berlin. Il faut attendre 1888 pour voir circuler le premier
  tram électrique de Suisse, sur la ligne Vevey – Territet.

English Wikipedia mention the first electric tramway was in Saint-Petersburg and the second in Berlin.

  The world's first electric tram line operated in Sestroretsk near
  Saint Petersburg, Russia, invented and tested by Fyodor Pirotsky in
  1880.[30][31] The second line was the Gross-Lichterfelde tramway in Lichterfelde near Berlin in Germany, which opened in 1881. It was
  built by Werner von Siemens who contacted Pirotsky. This was world's
  first commercially successful electric tram.

So which of those sources is correct?


texts:
USSR was created Dec 30 1922. I could only find a list of 4 SSR's: Russian, Belorussian, Ukranian, and Transcaucasian. The Central Asian region was largely a part of Russian SSR, or RSFSR at this time.

But it doesn't jibe with the map:

The red part is Russia. I put a green circle around the curious part. What is that tan/beige area inside Central Asia? What SSR does it belong to?


texts: Why wouldn't an ASDIC work immediately after a depth charge attack?

texts:
I'm reading about the WW2 North Atlantic submarine war. In particular about the anti-submarine weapons availbale to the allies.

This article includes a statement that I'm trying to understand.....

  When a depth charge explodes it can take 15 minutes before the disturbance can settle down enough that sonar becomes effective.

What was the nature of the 'disturbance' that could effect sonar for 15 minutes? I assume it's a reference to some form of underwater echos and/or shockwaves, but if so why so long? I know that sound travels much faster and further in water than air, but does that not mean that any echos should die down more quickly?

Or maybe the ASDIC was very sensitive and needed re-calibration (or even repairs) after a nearby explosion?

Or is there some other phenomena that I've missed?


texts:
I have read that Rosie the Riveter is a symbol of the American woman who worked in factories instead of men during the Second World War.

She appears to be associated with the slogan “We Can Do It!” Is this expression still in use nowadays? I mean, do ordinary (American, in particular) people know who is it? Does it preserve its meaning?


texts: Where is an image of the oracle bone that describes the nova?

texts:
(Related to my previous question)
Does anyone have a link to an image of the oracle bone that has this specific inscription:

The inscriptions include the oldest observation of a nova (1300BCE) ‘A great new star appeared in company with 心宿二 xīn xiù èr (Antares, in Scorpio)’ is recorded on the bones.

(Taken from chinasage.info)

UPDATE:
ORACLE BONE RESEARCH TOOLS:
For anyone looking into Oracle Bones a GREAT reference had been provided by droooze with full transcriptions for your research: [《甲骨文合集》11503]. Thank you droooze !

For anyone who is interested I have asked a further question on the Chinese Language Stack Exchange for a translation of the Oracle Bone 11503.


texts: What does "SS" mean in box 5 of the WD AGO 53-55 form?

texts: I have my father's WD AGO 53-55 form. He was a WWII D Day veteran. I have not been able to decipher the Component code in Box 5. I've seen many examples with AUS (for Army of the United States) and a few other codes. His shows as SS. Can anyone tell me what SS stands for in the Component box?


texts: How many citizens were in each century of the Roman electoral system?

texts:
The Centuriate assembly (Comicia centuriata) was arguably the most important assembly of the Roman republic. It was in charge of electing consuls, praetors and censors, of voting laws, declaring war and peace, judging capital cases, etc.

The Centuriate assembly included all Roman citizens, but not all votes carried the same weight. Citizens were organized by centuries according to their role (if any) in the army, and centuries had different sizes but each the same voting power. There were 193 centuries (at least during most of the republic), 18 of equites, the richest citizens able to buy a horse for war, 170 of infantry divided in 5 classes according to the weapons they soldiers could buy themselves, 4 of diverse people, and one of proletarii, too poor to be in the army.

All this information is in Livy (perhaps not as detailed there), on wikipedia, and almost in every modern book on the Roman republic I looked at. Obviously, the centuries of equites were composed of fewer citizens that the centuries of first class infantry, which gave each of the member of an equites century a greater individual voting power, etc...

But a question that I have not seen answered is :

  How many citizens was there in each century of the different types?

Of course there is no definite answer because it must have change during the long life of the roman republic. And it may be difficult to know precisely. But has anyone made some serious estimates on the question, say for certain dates like 400BC, 300Bc, 200BC? The question seems important in order to evaluate how biased toward the richest citizens was the centuriate assembly, and the Roman republic as a whole (which of course had other biased institutions, like the senate).


texts: Did war bonds have better investment alternatives during WWII?

texts:
The American government put a lot of effort into convincing the American populace to purchase WWII bonds. But did American citizens have good alternatives for investment during the same years? For example, was it more lucrative to purchase stocks or non-government bonds instead?

Or perhaps war bonds were a good deal and the government only needed to convince the populace to consider investing in the first place?


texts: Did the aborigines of Australia and the Maoris in New Zealand know about each other's existence, before the Europeans came?

texts:
The aborigines are believed to have migrated from India in prehistoric times. The Maoris are thought to have arrived from Polynesia and elsewhere in eastern Asia. They travelled by canoe.

It's one and a half thousand miles from NZ to OZ, about the same as the distance between Britain and Greenland. That's a long way, but NZ is even further away from the islands that the Polynesians travelled from. Did they ever visit Australia and meet its people?


texts: Why have eunuchs been so influential in Chinese history?

texts:
Throughout the history of China, eunuchs amassed power, destabilised dynasties, and commanded armies. They were a major cause in the decline of the Han, Tang and other dynasties.

What customs or beliefs or norms led to their gaining prominence?

When it was found they could wield power and challenge or undermine the authority of emperor, why were they not removed and distanced from their source of power?  They weren't necessary in the same way as generals or empresses.


texts: How has Catalonia ended up being so nationalist?

texts:
I mean I cannot comprehend how the separatist sentiment has risen so much in just a little more than 40 years (considering that when Franco died nationalism did exist, but nowhere near where it's now in intensity). I think that a pair of news that show how far this has gone are this one or this one or this one.

Which are the main reasons this has gone so far considering events from that 40 years?


texts: Why couldn't the UN lift the siege of Sarajevo?

texts: The Siege of Sarajevo lasted for more than three years, and the people inside were very much trapped. This was in 1992, at which time the UN had ~40,000 troops, which it had mobilized for the specific purpose of stabilizing the situation. My question is then: what were the main reasons for the UN not being able to intervene and lift the siege for such a long time, despite having the means to do at least something?


texts: Did the House of Representatives during Meiji Era exercise their powers?

texts: Currently, I am researching into the Imperial Diet of Japan during the Meiji Era. It has been established by historians that the House of Representatives were granted some form of power, such as the control of the budget which allowed them to use it as a form of leverage against the House and Peers and the Emperor, and also the ability to turn down bills proposed by House of Peers. However, I could not find any instances where they actually exercised that power. Would be greatly appreciated if someone could provide any instances where they did, with references. Thank you!


texts:
This relates to the numerous (British) news items which seem to have overnight turned the present virus-induced economic downturn into a 'historic downturn'. While there are opinion-based aspects that can be used in the reply here, I don't know how these could be quantified easily, so I've gone for the better aspect of whether the contemporaries felt that 1706 was a poor year (much as many of the people living in 2020 might be feeling that).

The Data
Overnight (or late yesterday), many British publications seem to have got the idea that the 2020 economic slump is "the biggest since 1706". A Guardian article references the ONS data series along with year-on-year comparisons while another used this turn of phrase:

1706 is how far economic historians have to look back to find a slump bigger than the one that now threatens the country as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
...
The economy was at the mercy of the weather. Three years after the slump of 1706, the country was in trouble again due to the Great Frost of 1709. It helped trigger a 14% drop in activity – a much more severe setback than the pricking of the South Sea Bubble in 1720.

Firstly, I wanted to find the Bank Of England article which actually stated this from the last few days. I was unable to do that (not that it is that important), with their yesterday's releases not mentioning historical comparisons, searches on the BOE site coming up empty for the specific reference, and none of their historical datasets looking as if they'd represent this aspect of the economy. It seems to have been a non-standard publication from the BOE in any case and I've noted referenced to it below -- but it was not a recent BOE newsitem / statement. The ONS, which should be more apposite for this, has a GDP dataset that only goes back to 1946 (makes sense).
However, I did finally find the best actual dataset for this which is based on a 2017 BOE publication:

The Slump of 1706 (?)
The WP English economy article doesn't mention 1706 in any way as a particularly hard year. Before this, my own knowledge of the 1700's economic part in Britain extended to the results of the union with Scotland (pay-offs, etc...) and the Great Storm of 1709. Further, the article that produced the data series also doesn't specifically mention 1706.
Further, the above graphic also illustrates many similar over-yearly 'slumps' between 1660 and 1763, with the severity of these changing over time and lessening towards the tail end of this graphic.
The Guardian article mentioned above used this graphic to show how bad 1706 was which conveniently starts at 1701, not giving much time for the previous annual changes to show up.

Keeping in mind the trends I've highlighted above from 1660 to the 1700's, and that the economy was primarily agricultural, it looks to me based on the numbers that the downturn in 1706 was not 'significant'. The lack of mentions for a specific downturn in that year (as opposed to the examples of the Storm of 1709 and South Sea Bubble that can be found with ease), brings me to ask: Was there a contemporary understanding that 1706 was an exceptionally poor year?


texts: What are Kublai Khan's contributions to culture?

texts:
I was under the impression that Genghis Khan was an invader while Kublai was more of a patron of fine arts; but reading Wikipedia it mainly mentions his campaigns for the Mongol throne and the unification of China.

Did he actually contribute significantly to world culture, and if so in what ways?


texts: Why didn't North American tribes use bog iron?

texts:
Travis's question got me to thinking that may be the relative infrequency of use of ironworking in the Old World was due to the fact that there was no easy availability of bog iron - which was one of the main sources of iron ore in middle ages.

However, upon looking, it seems that there were areas in modern USA territory that were very rich in bog iron.

Is there any research/writings explaining why bog iron smelting didn't get invented or at least widely used by the tribes in North America? Intuits/Escimos did use the meteorite iron, so it's not like there was no precedent; and I'm pretty sure that at least some tribes were at the development levels significantly exceeding that of Hittites (who were presumably the original inventors of iron working technology in the Old World).

Was it coal availability?

Easy availability of replacement materials making iron not needed?

Lack of settlement where bog iron areas were?


texts: Did American Indians disrupt railroads in their regions?

texts: In the Old West, many railroads went through Indian-occupied areas.  Are there any documented instances of the Indians ever sabotaging the railroads? Please provide dates and circumstances where possible.


texts: How can a skilled battle commander like Napoleon Bonaparte lose to Prussians at Waterloo (Belgium) as such?

texts:
According to this website Napoleon Bonaparte lost the battle at Waterloo to Prussians because(Chronologically):
 1. The failure of Grouchy keeping the Prussians away from the Battlefield.
 2. The late start because this allowed less time for fighting(Prussian troops
     here spotted at 1:00 pm)
 3. Napoleon’s wasted attempts at taking Hougomont Napoleon getting sick(Not his
     fault but impacted the result)
 4. Ney’s wasteful cavalry charges.

Napoleon was an adept or skilled battle commander. So it seems like there were errors in his tactics. The French army was way stronger. He was a skilled commander. How is it that Napoleon Bonaparte lost the battle as such? Was there any betrayal within his power circle?


texts: How many tons of steel were produced in Russia during the Russian Civil War?

texts:
I have a specific question that I'm highly interested in. Did Russia have any steel industry during its Civil War (1917 - 1922)? And if so, how big was it?

I know Russia built the trans-siberian railway right before that time, which required steel rails, but I'm not sure if that steel was imported or made domestically.

(I tagged Russia and USSR because it's a transitionary period between them.)

Edit: Steel industry is any facility that mixes molten iron with carbon (and optionally other alloys like magnesium). It does not necessarily have to be a mill.

Edit: Ideally, I'm looking for a number. How many tons of steel were produced in Russia at this time?


texts: I'm watching Ken Burns' The Civil War, and he paints a picture of George McClellan as someone who was perfectly prepared to score significant victories against the Confederacy, but simply decided to do nothing, because he did not trust Lincoln's judgement. Burns seems to side against McClellan in this, but I wonder if this is a commonly-held opinion about McClellan or if there are some who support his judgement of Lincoln and his decision not to act.


texts: Did Columbus really never know he reached a new continent?

texts:
A widespread knowledge is that Columbus died without knowing he reached a new continent.

But:

In Columbus Journal of the Third Voyage (1498) it is written:

  "I have come to believe that this is a mighty continent which was hitherto unknown. I am greatly supported in this view by reason of this great river, and by this sea which is fresh."

Moreover the idea of a new continent was not unknown to other Spanish crown navigators as during the lifetime of Columbus (who died in 1506), Amerigo Vespucci wrote in 1501:

  "We knew that land to be a continent, and not an island, from its long beaches extending without trending round, the infinite number of inhabitants, the numerous tribes and peoples, the numerous kinds of wild animals unknown in our country, and many others never seen before by us, touching which it would take long to make reference."

My question is:

Do we agree that at least Columbus was aware of the hypothesis that the land mass he hit was of a new continent?
From his third Journal, can we conclude he admitted he reached a new continent and if so the sentence from Wikipedia's Columbus page:

  "Never admitting that he had reached a continent previously unknown to Europeans rather than the East Indies he had set out for, [...]"

is incorrect?


texts: In what battle did Maharana Pratap fight the Mughals?

texts: I have read it ever where that Maharana Pratap fought the Mughals for the people of Mewar in today's Western India. Did these fights have historical significance? There is really very less information available on the internet about these fights.


texts: Did women in ancient Rome wear corsets, and if so, what were they made of?

texts: Breast bands and other kinds of support were used. The history of the corset as we know it, however, begins in the 1600's, according to Wikipedia. I find this hard to believe. Perhaps this is because whalebone was used in medieval and baroque corsets, so, the way we see it today, anything that does not have whalebone in it is not really a corset? The Romans did hunt whales, but maybe not enough to make whalebone sufficiently affordable for corset making. I'm kind of stumped here.


texts: Why did Kennedy refuse any military action in Laos at first and then decide otherwise by sending combat troops?

texts:
I was lately reading a lot about the civil war in Laos and the American involvement in there and now I am quite confused about the following:

What is the special thing about the administration of Kennedy during that war and what makes his term different from the other presidencies in regards to that war?

Note: This is not homework, it is just a research I am trying to do.


texts: What uniform did the Supreme State Arbiter of the USSR wear?

texts:
What uniform did the Supreme State Arbiter (главный государственный арбитр) of the USSR wear?

I think I saw it on a site before but I cannot find it now.

This is an example of a person in this position in uniform.


texts: Which of Hitler's peers had no more education than him?

texts:
By "peers," I mean contemporary heads of state. By "no more education than him," I mean "no more than secondary education." (He dropped out of secondary school at a young age, but later finished). Two people that he interacted with a lot, Mussolini and Stalin, appear to have "some college," but it appears to me that one or both did not "graduate."

Hitler's level of education was "average" for this time. Most heads of state, however, went further in their studies, and had more formal education than Hitler. So the question is, which ones (if any) did not?


texts: Paradigm change in power: from military to economic in Europe

texts:
It seems to me that the Middle-Ages/Renaissance observed a paradigm shift between the source of political power in Western Europe.

Indeed, in the High Middle-Ages, Kings were ruling surrounded by councelors who happened to be military leaders, warriors, or of military fame. For example, that page explains that

  At the court Charlemagne relied upon aristocratic / military leaders as well as senior members of the clergy to ensure that all parts of his empire were run according to his wishes (Roberts, 1996 p. 110)

For the time being, I would ignore the presence of the Church.

Reading the novel Le Grand Coeur (French) about Jacques Coeur [1395-1456] and watching a related documentary, as well as reading the Wikipedia's page, all those sources seems to concur to a somewhat revolutionary approach of Charles VII of France by introducing merchants as "close" councillors. This, of course, happened after the demise of the French nobility in battles like Agincourt or Crecy.

Further in time, one can see that after the English Civil War and following Glorious Revolution of the 17th Century, the power struggle was between the King and the parliament. The 18th Century shows an increase in the role of the Parliament of britain in politics. In particular the House of Commons, composed of Land owners (more interested in economics than military). Walpole was noble, but his policies were

  [...] for peace, lower taxes, growing exports [...]

At the end of the 18th Century, Washington was the first president of the USA and if he was of Noble ancestry, he didn't have a title himself. And following the French revolution, all government posts were occupied by non-noble members, most coming from merchant and/or land-owners families.

I thus see a trend shifting the political power from people whose primary concern were military to those mostly focusing on economy and finance.

I would like to know when did this shift in power paradigm occur?

From the Charles VII, Jacques Coeur part, it seems that it really started to happened at the end of the 100 years war, but I think it did not happened just yet.

Or am I reducing it to oversimplistic views?


texts: Why did the Sassanid and the Eastern Roman Empire fail to make a lasting peace?

texts:
The joint history of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire appears to be dominated by almost constant warfare. My understanding is that this weakened both empires to the point of making the rapid Muslim conquest of the entire Sassanid and large parts of the Eastern Roman empire possible.

Was there any significant obstacle to the two empires coming to a lasting peaceful arrangement? If so, was it "material" (e.g. stuff both needed to control) or "cultural" (e.g. the Romans never had to make lasting peace with anyone before, so didn't know how to), or some combination of both?


texts: Did Stalin's son, Yakov, commit suicide?

texts:
In Milan Kundera's book "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" there's a mention of Stalin's son, Yakov, who, reportedly, committed suicide.

Quoting from the book (emphasis mine):

  Not until 1980 were we able to read in the Sunday Times how Stalin's son, Yakov, died. Captured by the Germans during the Second World War, he was placed in a camp
  together with a group of British officers. They shared a latrine. Stalin's son habitually left a foul mess. The British officers resented having their latrine smeared with shit, even if it was the shit of the son of the most powerful man in the world. They brought the matter to his attention. He took offense. They brought it to his attention again and again, and tried to make him clean the latrine. He raged, argued, and fought. Finally, he demanded a hearing with the camp commander. He wanted the commander to act as arbiter. But the arrogant German refused to talk about shit. Stalin's son could not stand the humiliation. Crying out to heaven in the most terrifying of Russian curses, he took a running jump into the electrified barbed-wire fence that surrounded the camp. He hit the target. His body, which would never again make a mess of the Britishers' latrine, was
  pinned to the wire.

Is there any evidence that can support this story, or is just part of author's fiction?


texts: How could the 4/5 devaluation of Franc Poincaré in 1928 end the financial crisis France was going through?

texts:
In June 1928, the French government ran by Raymond Poincaré decided to devalue the country's currency by 4/5.
Thus, if I understand correctly, it created a new currency called the "Franc Poincaré" which was 1/5 the value of the previous currency, the "Franc Germinal".

From what I understand, this devaluation meant that with 1 new Franc Poincaré you could have five times less gold that you could previously with 1 old Franc Germinal.

History books will tell you that this devaluation put an end to the financial crisis that France was experiencing at that time.

I really don't understand how this is possible.

As I (probably poorly) understand it, a massive devaluation like this would have the immediate effect of making French people (who have Francs) 5 times poorer than they were before.

How could people ever accept this without overthrowing the government?
How could this massive devaluation have the effect of ending the financial crisis?


texts: In Classical Athens, what did the portico of the archon basileus look like?

texts:
In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates and his titular interlocutor meet at the portico of the archon basileus - or chief archon. I've been looking for an image of the portico but had no luck so far, and am not entirely sure how else to proceed.

Has the portico been preserved, and are there images of it? If not, are there credible descriptions of it or inferences we can make from similar buildings that have survived? I'm trying to get a mental (or even better, literal) picture of the setting of the dialogue.


texts: Was the penal system used to colonise Australia?

texts:
Margaret Atwood once said on the Stranger Than Fiction podcast that the British had a strategy to colonise Australia via the penal system. That is, their motivation for sending criminals to the Australian penal colony was to force a large number of people to move to a yet-to-be established colony. When the male-to-female balance became problematic, they simply lowered to bar for women to be sent.

My question is whether the penitentiary system was simply part of a larger scheme to force early colonists to come. Was Australia colonised to provide a penal colony or was the penal colony established to aid colonisation?

Given that one of my ancestors was sent to Australia for the crime of stealing buttons, it seems that there may be some truth to it. The cost of punishing this crime seems discordant with its petty nature.

BTW: This question was originally asked on Skeptics.


texts: Could anybody identify the rank/regiment of this soldier?

texts:
Image of British soldier, probably taken in the late 1800s. Born in 1825, died in 1899.

Could you help me identify his rank and regiment?


texts: What did Julius Lippert lecture on after WWII?

texts:
Julius Lippert was a Nazi top functionary (mayor of Berlin till he was demoted and fell out of grace) and a convicted war criminal. However, wiki tells us:

  He lectured at universities until his death on 30 June 1956, in Bad
  Schwalbach.

What did he lecture about? Where?


texts: What 17C protocol left a princess standing whilst commoners sat?

texts:
I am reading WILLIAM AND MARY by John Van Der Kiste 2008, 2011, in which he relates William III's reluctant plans to remarry after Mary II's death. This was  to ensure the Protestant succession after Anne's death, as well as a future Stadtholder, particularly in view of the young Duke of Gloucester's precarious health. One of the "candidates" was Louise Dorothea Sophia, the daughter of Frederick of Brandenburg.
Van der Kiste discusses the protocol when, in 1696, William travelled to the Rhine to meet Frederick and the prospective bride. Initially, neither Frederick nor William would sit down, each reluctant to take the only great armchair. Kiste goes on:

Then Frederick left the room and everyone sat down to five hours of cards, the King in the great armchair, the Duke of Celle who had travelled with him in an ordinary one, the Electress on her bed and Portland and Keppel on stools. The rest stood watching, among them Princess Louise, until Keppel broke protocol by gallantly pulling forward another stool for her and inviting her to sit down. emphases mine.

I am confused by a "protocol"  that left even a fourteen year old princess standing, when Portland and Keppel, who were commoners, were seated.
Edit
This, from the admittedly slightly later Court of Louis XVI, adds some context.

Only the royal family could take their places at the table and before them, seated, the duchesses, princesses or high-ranking persons who had the privilege to sit on a stool, then, standing, the other (courtiers).

Similarly -

The king and queen always had a fauteuil (armchair) to sit on. In their presence, no one else was allowed an armchair, unless you were also a monarch.
A chair with a back but no arms was allowed for those closest in rank to the king, such as his brother or children.
The tabouret, a padded stool was awarded to those holding the rank of duchess. Lesser ranking nobility would be expected to stand.

From this site


texts: Why did the French nobility adopt Calvinism?

texts:
The Wikipedia article on the French Wars of Religion says that the Calvinist form of Protestantism, in particular, spread into the nobility. Now, I'd like to know why is that, and not Lutheranism for example?

I speculate that Calvin is closer to Zwingli in the issue of the limits of authority of the king, but it could also be for more trivial reasons (e.g. language barrier of Lutheranism).


texts: Why were the people from the Southeast in the US so different from the rest of the US?

texts:
People in the Southern US seem to me more racist and have rebelled against the rest of US.

What were the reasons there has been such a distinctive split in attitudes, like the split between two political parties, first between the North and South and later the nation as a whole (for example, during the South's fierce resistance to the Civil Right's Movement)? What caused it to develop in the American colonies, through the ante-bellum period, and continue after the Civil War into the modern era?

For the sake of limiting discussion let us limit the period to nothing past the 1980s. In the 1980's, demographic patterns changed and many people started moving to the South from other areas. The New South Movement started, as well.

I believe that differences in economics, warmer climate, way of life, lack of urbanization or population dynamics might explain the South's problems with race relations. What are some of the best theories for how the problem started and why it persisted?


texts: Was Vox In Rama a factor of the quick spread of the Black Plague?

texts: I am working on a project for a history class and my topic was the bubonic plague. I was researching when I came across multiple articles that claimed  Pope Gregory IX - leader of the Roman Catholic Church in the 1230s - issued a papal bull called the Vox In Rama that implied cats were demonic creatures and thus decreased the number of cats in Britain. This caused the rat population to increase and ultimately led to the widespread of the bubonic plague. I am unsure if this information is historically correct or not.


texts: Did the later Byzantine Emperors use regnal numbers?

texts:
Regnal numbers are an essentially medieval European invention, and although we today might talk about Ramesses II and Khosrow II, this is not how those rulers referred to themselves.

For most of its history, the Byzantine Empire appears to have followed this pattern. We talk about Constantine VII, but he would have called himself Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos. But did the later emperors ever adopt the use of regnal numbers? Their Ottoman successors seem to have done so, although it's not clear to me when exactly this happened.


texts: Did Soviet people know Stalin's birth name?

texts:
We all know now that Stalin's real name was Jughashvili (Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili). Lenin was actually Ulyanov, Trotsky was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, Kamenev was Leo Rosenfeld, etc.
Searching through literature and internet (both international and Russian) you could find many explanations as to why the Bolsheviks had pseudonyms, how Stalin chose to be Stalin and Koba before that, etc.
However, I could not find information on whether the average Soviet citizen (let's say a factory worker or kolkhoz farmer) knew or could have known the birth name of Stalin or other Soviet leaders, even those who were disgraced like Trotsky. Note that Soviet press and other media constantly praised Stalin and maligned Trotsky after his exile in 1929. But I could not find any information that they ever used the birth names of either of them. And if not the press, did at least Soviet encyclopedias (available to a much smaller circle of academics) mention these details? Were there even word-of-mouth rumors about the origins and birth names of the leaders?
EDIT : To clarify matters further, I will give one simple example. After the capture of Yakov Dzhugashvili, Germans issued propaganda leaflets calling him elder Stalin's son. Could average Soviet soldier (poor peasant or factory worker) make a connection between Dzhugashvili and Stalin, which is of course necessary for propaganda to work ?


texts: Has a major war ever occured and a map before the war looked exactly the same after?

texts:
By this I mean has there ever been a major military conflict from the time periods of 1500 ad to present (I disregard civil wars and weird things like say the Pig War etc...) where if you had a map made one day before the war started of the countries / kingdoms / empires involved, that map would be the exact same as a map made one day after the war ended.

By change I mean there would be no territory lost or gained by either side, no change of country, state, or city names, also the war can not have resulted in a regime change (other than in a democracy) i.e. the king, tyrant, dictator (or his family/faction) remained in power on both sides.

The only one that I could think of is possibly the Soviet-Afghan war (but I could be mistaken,) but are there any others?


texts: I know that there’s Christmas ornaments, but are there Easter ornaments? Have any been made historically? I’ve never seen them but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist though.


texts: Why is the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima so much more infamous than that of Nagasaki?

texts:
I am not American, so this might just be something in my country, but growing up everyone knew about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. However, when we began studying this in high school everyone was surprised to learn that a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Many times I've encountered people who have heard about Hiroshima but not Nagasaki.

Were they reported on differently at the time? Is there some historical reason for one being more infamous than the other (other than one being the first)?


texts: Source of quote attributed to Kanō Jigorō: "It is not important to be better than someone else, but to be better than yesterday."

texts:
The following quote:

  It is not important to be better than someone else, but to be better than yesterday.

is frequently attributed to the founder of Judo, Kanō Jigorō, but I can find no evidence to support this claim.

What is the origin of this quote?


texts: Have there been any notable battles fought with steel vs. bronze weapons?

texts:
In answering the question "was the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age violent?" I found out a few facts that I hadn't expected.  Namely, that the early iron weapons weren't necessarily much better than the bronze weapons, and Roman officers would prefer to use bronze or steel.  Also, steel had existed far earlier than I realized (particularly in the East), just that it was exceedingly rare.

So, I'm wondering how a steel sword compared with a bronze one.  Were there any battles fought where one side was outfitted largely with steel, and the other exclusively bronze?  Was the outcome as one-sided as I expect?

I'm mainly interested in Middle East / Far East / African examples.  I know Europe had abandoned bronze long before it achieved steel.  And in the New World the Incas had mastered bronze but were defeated by the Conquistadors, but they also had guns, germs, and horses.


texts: Today we have advanced machines to mine iron, but it was not so a millennium ago. How did our ancestors locate the presence of iron deposits, mine them and make weapons out of them? How did they achieve the temperatures required to melt iron given that they didn't have any advanced tools?


texts: Did the territories officially choose a side to support in the American Civil War?

texts: In studying the history of New Mexico's involvement in the American Civil War, it is unclear to me if, as just a territory at the time, and not a state, it could officially "support" a side? Nearly all maps showing the split of the states, don't indicate which side the territories supported. It seems that unofficially, those living in the southern half of the state tended to support the Confederacy, due to economic ties in the cattle industry with Texas. Yet those in the northern have tended to support the Union. But these trends don't represent the government of the territory picking a side, just attitudes of the people. Then there was the regions taken in actual military conflict, but that still is different from the territory joining a side. I have some history books on this, but I am suspicious the authors are not fully forthright, because admitting a territory joined the Confederacy is controversial. Did the territories pick a side in the war?


texts: Map of/Measure of conflicted areas throughout history

texts:
I am looking for a map which would give an indication of how much territorial conflict there was in a given area. One way I imagined one could do it is to look at how territorial states (in the period where those make sense) have changed over the time. Does anybody know if maps like this exist or suggestions on how to make it in a meaningful way?
Edit notice: Thanks for all your very good comments - I have tried to address them.
Old Question: I am looking for a map of Europe which displays the number of times every area was taken over since year 1000. For example the current England was only taken over once in 1066 and therefore that area should have the value 1 etc. Do you know if such a map exists?
Comment: Cross-posted from https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/374621/map-showing-the-number-of-times-an-area-in-europe-was-occupied-in-history


texts: How was the hilt attached to a medieval sword?

texts: Modern swordsmithing seems to make use of drilling and boring the Pommel and handle to fit the tang. But drill presses didn't exist in those days. How was a sword's handle (and pommel) attached to a tang, and made sturdy?


texts: When was the electric iron introduced to the state of Georgia?

texts: I am aware that the electric iron was invented in 1882 by Henry W. Seely, but I would like to find out when rich and middle-class Georgians started using it.


texts: Power of Prussian artillery pieces during the Napoleonic Wars

texts:
I'm developing a RTS game which is set during the Napoleonic Wars and want to implement these artillery for the Prussian side:

6 pound cannon
7 pound howitzer
12 pound cannon

Unfortunately, I have no Idea how much force the gunpowder created to accelerate the cannonball. Is there any historical reference for this?

In the best case I'd need the ammount of gunpowder used and/or the muzzle velocity to simulate it properly.


texts: Why and how were the Mongols able to invade Russia successfully?

texts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus%27

  The campaign was heralded by the Battle of the Kalka River in 1223,
  which resulted in a Mongol victory over the forces of several Rus'
  principalities. The Mongols nevertheless retreated. A full-scale
  invasion of Rus' by Batu Khan followed, from 1237 to 1240. The
  invasion was ended by the Mongol succession process upon the death of
  Ögedei Khan. All Russian states were forced to submit to Mongol rule
  and became part of the Golden Horde empire, some of which lasted until
  1480.

Mongol invaders of Russia enjoyed a level of success never experienced by the Europeans. Why is that?


texts: Why did the Ottomans not change their capital to an Arab city?

texts: As of 1517 A.D., the Ottmans have acquired the whole Levant, Egypt and they've largely become Muslim. Why they did not move their capital to a historically Islamic city like Damascus, Baghdad, or Cairo? Did any discussion on the topic ever take place?


texts: My friends and I were climbing near Triglav (Slovinia) last weekend, and there was some memorial for people who died pulling guns up the mountain. Now I don't remember which era that was, but I am asuming it was WW2. My question is how important could those guns really have been? Which type of guns were these, and how did they get them up? Generally anything about this as I could not find anything about it. Thanks.


texts: Babylon Berlin TV series: how historically accurate are the subplots about poison gas and false flag assassinations?

texts:
(spoilers)

I watched Babylon Berlin, a Netflix series a while back.  It is a series taking place in Berlin right before the Great Depression and deals with hardcore German nationalists, who seem to morph into Nazi sympathizers.  The background is very much the start of the Nazi-vs-Communist clashes that would mushroom later on.

I recognized some of the historical events, but was wondering whether some others were inspired by actual events.

Germany is flying military aircrafts on Russian bases.  Odd as it may seem, it's true, the late Weimar Republic and the USSR had a budding military bromance:  Germany could experiment away from Versailles arms prohibitions on AFV and aircraft and Russia could peek at higher tech/tactics.  (Note: the JU 52 trimotor depicted came in several years later).
Big massacre of Communists by Berlin police.  May 1st, 1929.  Also true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blutmai.
At least one massacre of Trotskyists by Soviet Communists.  I don't doubt some form of this happened at some point.

Now these are ones I am curious about:

Germany is getting phosgene combat gas shipped in by trainloads from Russia.  That seems a bit unbelievable - the quantities would never be enough to be very useful in war and hell would rain down on Germany from French and English if they got caught (the train also has Tsarist gold in it, but I assume that's purely TV embellishment).
One hapless young lady gets manipulated into killing the Berlin chief of police (who happens to be Jewish) when her Communist boyfriend is supposedly killed at his command.  Turns out the boyfriend is actually a Nazi and wasn't killed at all.  But it is was a convenient way to make it look as if the Communists ordered the hit.

Did something similar happen with an agent provocateur triggering the bombing/murder of a high German civilian/police official in the late 20s?


texts: How direct was the Enlightenment's role in the French Revolution?

texts:
John Thomson, in his book "Europe after Napoleon", argues that the Enlightenment had little direct role in creating the conditions for revolution. Neither the thinkers prescribed revolution nor the readers wanted a revolution. How to analyse or examine this?

Are the ideas only used as justification rather than acting as motivators?


texts: Were there any Germans in Japan after the surrender of Germany in May, 1945 and if so, what happened to them?

texts: I assume there were potentially hundreds of German advisers, etc. in Japan at the time of the German surrender. Is there evidence that they tried to reach Allied troops to surrender to them? Did some fight directly for Japan? What happened to these Germans after Japan itself surrendered?


texts:
Is / was there ever any co-existence solution to peace with Israel that the Arab Palestinian side proposed or said would accept?

This was my original phrasing (using 2 state & co existence):
Was there ever any 2 state division or co existence solution to peace with Israel that the Arab Palestinian side proposed or said would accept?

Basically, I am trying to find if there was ever any effort from that side to propose or counter a peaceful end to the conflict that they would accept.

There's lot of talk of proposals & divisions put forth by British, UN, America, Israel etc, that were rejected by the Palestinian/ Arab side

Assuming they were not satisfied or unhappy with these, did they propose any counter offers (even if not very generous) that they would accept?

Is there any co-existence proposal put forth by them or counter offer that they said they would accept?


texts: Why did Eisenhower iconize Robert E. Lee?

texts:
I recently discovered this clip of General Eisenhower: Eisenhower Explains About General Lee (1957)
In it he claims "The 4 top Americans of history: Franklin, Washington, Lincoln and Lee"
I don't think anyone would claim General Eisenhower's respect for Lee was because of racism or confederate romanticism; given his strong stance against segregation, and his own ancestors fought for the Union. So what is there about Lee that Ike admired so much to place him in the same category as Lincoln?


texts: Why would chickens be blue in the Soviet Union?

texts:
A 2017-12-30 NYRB article mentions "blue chickens sold in state grocery stores". An anecdote about life in the Soviet Union also mentions that "[b]lue chickens would sometimes be sold outside" the "regular small 'grocery stores.'"

Why would chickens be blue? Was it due to some sort of chemical treatment?

For the benefit of those who think that by "blue" chickens they're referring to chickens with a few feathers that might at a stretch be considered blue, here is the fuller quote from the NYRB article:

  Nor would the private markets sell mayonnaise. They’d sell everything else—poultry birds proudly displaying curly yellow fat in their cavities, as if in reproach to the bony and blue chickens sold in state grocery stores.

I imagine that these chickens were plucked in order for one to tell that they had "curly yellow fat" or were "bony".


texts: How did marrying off one's daughter help secure an alliance, in early medieval Europe?

texts:
Marriage between royal family was often a way to secure / strengthen an alliance between two monarchs. For example, according to Wikipedia

  Marriage between dynasties could serve to initiate, reinforce or
  guarantee peace between nations. Alternatively, kinship by marriage
  could secure an alliance between two dynasties which sought to reduce
  the sense of threat from or to initiate aggression against the realm
  of a third dynasty

I wonder, how this would work from the point of view of the dynasty that supplied the princess? For example, if you marry off your daughter, and she lives in the other monarch's family, of course it will somewhat restrain you from attacking them. But how does this guarantee (or at least increase the confidence) that the other monarch will not betray you? If anything it seemed the daughter can be used as hostage, a bargaining chip, or even mistreated by the other monarch in future conflicts.


texts: Were there cases of bride kidnapping in the medieval period?

texts:
In the Medieval period in Europe was there ever been any occurrence of a royal/nobleman capturing a fellow high-born woman (potentially from another country) for the sake of marrying her (and thus securing political ties with the bride's family)?

What did Catholic Canon Law say specifically about this matter? How would it be resolved?


texts: Have primary voters in US overseas territories or their delegates ever had a noteworthy influence in any primary election or convention?

texts:
While watching Ken Burns' The Roosevelts I noticed that from the days of TR up through the early 1960s, footage of the party conventions where presidential candidates were nominated seemed to prominently feature the delegations from the Canal Zone. Nothing specific was mentioned about this, it was just a visual detail that I happened to notice and found intriguing.

While the Canal Zone is no longer a US territory, this article from PRI suggests that Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico all vote in primary elections, despite their lack of representation in the Electoral College.

There was quite a bit of news coverage back in March when Bloomberg won in American Somoa, which will apparently have 6 delegates to the Democratic Convention.

All of this has me wondering if there was any specific election where the delegates of such territories have had any significant influence. Was there a close call where there votes were decisive? If not, have the delegates ever had any other kind of indirect influence, like a prominent speech or some kind of activism on the convention floor?


texts: John Glubb - importance and academic interest

texts:
Recently I had the displeasure of discussing with someone who argued that professional soldier and amateur historian John Glubb "demonstrated" that women in public offices entail the decadence of societies.

I searched for the book, or rather pamphlet ("The Fate of Empires"), and, needless to say, the author can't demonstrate anything similar (though I don't doubt he effectively believed something like that).

But I got curious - what importance, if any, does academic history in Anglo-Saxon countries attribute to John Glubb as a historian (I know he is not irrelevant as a military professional)? Does anyone care? Is he cited, discussed, refuted? If so, by whom?


texts: Why did Alexander the Great spare Porus's life?

texts:
Between Persia & India, Alexander had become more ruthless, massacring cities even when they didn't resist.

He always executed any who resisted before Porus/Purushottama.

Why was Porus/Purushottama allowed to live?


texts: What food might they have at the Cold Harbor, Virginia, in 1860?

texts:
Cold Harbor Virginia was named for an inn, the Cold Harbor.  You could stay there but you could not get hot food.  It seems that already in 17th century Virgina a "cold harbor" was such an inn 1.

It would be great if someone knows details of that specific inn.  But I suppose that would be very hard to find.

I hope someone can say roughly what kind of food, if any, such an inn around this place and time might have supplied (before the Civil War began).


texts: How did the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth become official?

texts: I believe that they were good allies but were they also at some point became one nation. But it seemed like an unusually long "courtship" that lasted decades, or even centuries. That's why am kinda confused by the whole "Commonwealth" aspect. When and why did a "de facto" relationship become "de jure?" Could someone explain better on what that whole part of history was about.


texts: Could British India have realistically allied with both Afghanistan and the Punjab?

texts:
In his book The Return of a King, historian William Dalrymple is strongly critical of British policy toward Afghanistan prior to the disastrous invasion of 1839. He implies, quoting the British envoy William Burnes, that the British could have successfully bought the rulers of both Afghanistan and the Punjab on-side.

While I see no reason to doubt the suggestion that the ruler of Afghanistan, Dost Mohammed, was pro-British, his price for a formal alliance was British help in reclaiming Peshawar from the invading Punjabi forces. Given this friction between the two states, the idea that diplomatic solution was not just feasible but relatively easy, seems a bold one.

"Relatively easy" is difficult to qualify without extensive quotes from the book, as it's implied in tone rather than stated directly, but here's an example:

  This, he [Burnes] realised, was actually good news for his mission, as it could only make Ranjit Singh [the Punjabi ruler] more willing to come to terms with Dost Mohammed about the future of the city, and with luck allow Burnes to reconcile the two rivals, bringing both into alliance with the British.

Reading around the subject - see James Perry in Arrogant Armies for example -    it seems there is a view that this friction was indeed insoluble and Britain would have found it impossible to placate both states.

Which view is correct?


texts: Was it common to carry a concealed dagger in Spanish California?

texts:
Dmitry Zavalishin, a Decembrist, wrote about his 1824 visit to Alta California:

  The second, Padre José Altamira, was more a politician
  and soldier than a monk or missionary. He always carried, like all lay
  Spaniards, a knife or dagger under the leather which was wrapped
  around the calves of their legs and which was substituted for boot tops,
  since they wore shoes, not boots.

The cowhide calf sheathes are well attested for soldiers, perhaps less so for priests. Zavalishin may have exaggerated, but was it in fact common for the Spanish population of California to carry a dagger on the leg?