texts: What was the evidence against Peter Pond who was accused of ordering John Ross’s murder?

texts:
In 1786 Peter Pond, a map maker, returned from his expedition. John Ross  had a dispute with him, because Ross came to compete with Pond.

In 1787 John Ross was killed and the accused man, who allegedly ordered his murder, was Pond. What was the evidence on Peter Pond, who was accused of ordering John Ross’s murder?


texts: Were any other members of the Kennedy (Political) family affected by Addison's disease?

texts: Besides JFK, are there any known Addison's sufferers in the Kennedy political family?


texts: Did the Soviet Union get a net border gain from China during World War II?

texts: The border changes between the Soviet Union and China between 1917 and 1945 seem to be very complicated. At the end, in 1945, the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria wholeheartedly, and in violation of their neutrality pact with Japan, seizing huge swaths of land. Did the Soviet Union later return this territory to China? What was the net change from 1917 to 1945? Did the Russia/Soviet Union end up even larger by 1945, or did China expand at the expense of the old Russia Empire?


texts: Are there any contemporary diaries about the Yugoslav Wars?

texts:
I struggle to find any, I think about diary, as written by someone who was at the heart of the war, with some proper understanding of the things happening around him, like the "Berlin Diary" from William Shirer.
I really enjoyed Shirer's "Berlin Diary", an American foreign correspondent's experience in the first years of WW2, and his growing disillusionment through time, and I was hoping to find something similar for the Yugoslav wars; I'd like a book that looks at the situation on a wider scale, and also is factual - which might be a bit naive to search for in a highly intense war time.
I found Sarajevo: A War Journal by Zlatko Dizdarevic, Zlata's Diary by Zlata Filipović. Even General Mladic kept a journal.  My concern is that I don't think Zlata's Diary would look at the things at a wider scale, and Mladic's journal would say more about himself, than about the war, as I think it is highly biased because of him being a "warlord". I will certainly pick up Zlatko Dizdarevic's book, but I was searching for a more factual book - which might be a bit naive to search for in a highly intense war time.


texts:
When did humans start to keep track of years with unique identifiers for each year?

I assume that the realization that seasons were cyclic came first, and that at some point we decided to call each cycle a year (I assume this happened before the discovery of how the solar system worked, since it's easier to notice season cycles than rotations around the sun). I assume it was at some later point that we decided to give each of those years a unique identifier (e.g. number) to help keep track of things.

My questions is: when was that "later point"? When did we start "numbering" the years to keep track of them? Who did it first? How did they do it (arbitrary number, years since notable event, ..?)

Also, when did a large portion of a population become aware of this (the numbering)? i.e. if you ask pretty much anybody today they'll be able to tell you what year it is, no matter their walks of life. But I guess that when people first started numbering years it was most useful to certain members of the population and inconsequential for others, therefore some people might have been unaffected and unaware of the current year.


texts: In this scene what are the names of the kind of workers and the object they are propeling?

texts: This goes back early 1900s I imagine. In this NYTimes video  (2'05'') there are five men on a railroad equipment. I tried looking for pictures and on americanrails.com, but found no clue to get to the name of that kind of workers and to the thing they are giving motion to.


texts: How was it possible for the Ukrainian SSR to be one of the founding members of the UN if it was basically a Province of the USSR?

texts: This one thing was always troubling me. How and why could the Belorussian and Ukranian SSRs gain so much of theoretical autonomy so as to have their own autonomous Foreign Policies while other states couldn't?


texts:
Know of any historical tales in which a man kills the woman he loves as a sacrifice in the name of duty, religion, etc.?

I'll take mythological tales too, but for the purposes of the novel I'm writing, I'm hoping there will be a story from history that can be a good jumping off point for me. Preferably something B.C. as I'll be using future time periods as well. She does actually have to die to further the story, and I'd like to avoid familial ties (brother/sister, parent/child) being the relationship between the two characters.

Perhaps this is an odd request, but this seems like a site full of knowledgeable people, so I thought I'd go ahead and ask. Thanks! :)


texts: What is the approximate value of a Spanish ducat in 1557?

texts:
In the text of "A narrative of the expedition of Hernando de Soto into Florida published at Evora in 1557" the anonymous author states that de Soto "... gathered a hundred and four score thousand ducats together..." from his adventures in Peru with Pizarro.

I've been doing a bit of google research, but I can't find anything that approximates that value of a Spanish ducat at that time. Also, the text makes reference to Rials, so I would also be interested in that valuation as well.

I understand there is no way to provide an exact number. I'm looking for an approximate number: Is there any historical evidence that a Spanish ducat of that era must contain X weight of gold (or silver)?


texts:
While reading, I stumbled upon references to Alexander's seizure of Brahmin towns in what would today be called Pakistan. Googling did not fetch much information, most results are just references to a book by P Eggermont.

Does some one know of other sources I can read upon?
I find "Brahmin towns" a little strange. In present day India, I do not think there are any single-caste-exclusive towns. Was this something that was widespread in the past? If yes, when did the practice of single-caste-town go out of fashion?


texts: What is the context of Lincoln saying: "if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it"

texts:
Lincoln said (emphasis mine):

  Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.

  Hon. Horace Greeley: Dear Sir.

  I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the
  New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of
  fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here,
  controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe
  to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If
  there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive
  it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed
  to be right.

  As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant
  to leave any one in doubt.

  I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the
  Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the
  nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who
  would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save
  slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not
  save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I
  do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to
  save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I
  could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I
  could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could
  save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
  What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe
  it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do
  not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever
  I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more
  whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try
  to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views
  so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

  I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty;
  and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that
  all men every where could be free.

  Yours, A. Lincoln.

This article provides some analysis:

  Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham
  Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New
  York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The
  Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's
  administration lacked direction and resolve. President Lincoln wrote
  his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in
  his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving
  the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as
  a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A
  few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of
  Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his
  editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for
  his "altered position" on emancipation.

Why did Lincoln feel the need to write a letter to begin with? And was this truly at the same time that he was preparing to read the emancipation proclamation? I find Greeley's final assessment the most confusing aspect.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm


texts: What were the requirements for Ancient Greek colonist groups?

texts:
Disclaimers
Given that the colonies were not created in empty space, it may not have been necessary to equip each and every group of colonists with the skills needed to be self sufficient.
Assuming, further, that it  was desired to reduce the number of people sustained on Greek soil, and some colonies were compulsory, they may not have asked for model craftsmen, farmers,…
Main part
In spite of the above, I suspect that it was a patently bad idea to send a trireme full of poets and dancing masters, trusting that some neighbouring city would have helped them to establish their own city.
Rather, some sensible rules must have been observed prior to leaving the metropolis (mother city). I suspect they stipulated:

sending someone who knew about canalisation
sending numerous experienced farmers
~~sending priests ~~ Here I was likely mistaken. The literature appears to indicate that priests were often „just“ respected members of the community
sending doctors
sending shipbuilders
…

Do we know about the existence of such requirements or perhaps even have a record stating some?
Edit:
As helpfully observed in the comments, the most important Greek colonisations predated the bulk of literary evidence. There were, however, a few colonies established in the 4th and even 3rd century BC (for examples in the region of the Euxine Sea, see here). Therefore we need not relinquish all hope.


texts: What is the history of the legality of polygamy in Arab states?

texts: In what Arab states having multiple wives legal and where it is not? How this changed over time and what countries were pioneers in the reforms?


texts: Were servants killed and entombed in Egyptian pyramids?

texts:
I remember reading somewhere that along with the earthly possessions of the pharaoh, their favorite servants were also killed and entombed inside the pyramids.

Is this true?


texts: What are some indicators that distinguish pseudo-history from actual history?

texts:
It is sometimes hard for a layman to separate well-researched history from the writings of kooks (or what Mark Twain called "inspired idiots").
For example:  my local library carries "A Secret History of the English Language".  This book attempts to make reasoned claims that English is not descended from Anglo-Saxon and that French descends from English rather than from Latin.  One could begin to be suspicious of its revisionism based on the sensational title, but then, prominently displayed on the cover is a quote from Norman Cantor, who I have read and do respect as a serious historian.  The quote reads:

Fascinating and deeply learned… I read it twice.
— Norman F. Cantor, Professor Emeritus, Medieval Studies, Columbia University.

What!!  Did he read it a second time to locate all the factual errors and bad assumptions?  Does he actually believe this unusual take on linguistics?  Did he have fun comparing the author's hysteria with his own measured tone?  More to my general question:  How can one differentiate legitimate overturning of outdated assumptions (a necessary part of any scientific endeavor), from kooks who want to kick over the anthill because its fun?


texts: ut and et in the third Dicta Patricii of the Book of Armagh

texts:
I am doing research on the motto of the Pontifical Irish College in Rome (Italian: Pontificio Collegio Irlandese) which reads "Ut Christiani Ita et Romani Sitis" (Book of Armagh Folio 9).

Most scholarly texts have ut Romani Sitis, and a reading of the facsimile of the original suggests that this is correct.

I cannot find when the change was made, though in 1864 Essays on the Origin, Doctrines, and Discipline of the Early Irish Church by Cardinal Patrick Francis Moran quotes the "et" form while seeming to refer to sources that use the "ut" form.

There are two issues, the minor one is the latin translation, the more important one is the source of the text in the form used in the college motto "et Romani sitis" , almost universally claimed to be from the Book of Armagh, Moran actually gives the correct reference, but  misquotes the text he is referring to. As the "et" form subsequently takes on a life of its own, being reproduced frequently,  Im curious as to its origin.

Does anyone know when this change might have been made and why? Does it weigh the meaning more towards a "proof text for Roman claims perhaps? Any Ideas.


texts: Would a commissioned officer in the Royal Navy during the mid-late 18th century ever sail on a vessel other than a man-o-war, ship of the line, etc?

texts: As someone who does not exactly understand how naval commissions worked in the 18th century, I am curious to know if there might have ever been an occasion where a commissioned officer (such as a First Lieutenant) would sail on a merchant vessel or civilian ship? Is it possible that they could have been stationed on a vessel that was in a different port and needed the transportation? Or would they ever sail on a civilian ship while on furlough?


texts:
I heard someone talking about Timbuktu, Mansa Musa (they claim that he is the richest man in history).
They also claimed that Mali was the richest state in the 14th century world and that the Malian king Abu Bukhari II sailed to the Americas before Columbus.
Ivan van Sertima wrote a book titled: "They came before Columbus".
He claims that there were spears which were found in the Americas and that the metallic composition matched those of spears in Medieval Mali.
Here are some excepts.

"The Indians of this
Espanola said there had come to Espanola a black people who have the
tops of their spears made of a metal which they called gua-nin, of
which he [Columbus] had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them
assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of
silver and 8 of copper. The origin of the word guanin may be tracked
down in the Mande languages of West Africa, through Mandigo, Kabunga,
Toronka, Kankanka, Bambara, Mande and Vei. In Vei, we have the form of
the word ka-ni which, transliterated into native phonetics, would give
us gua-nin." p.11.

I want to know if this was historically accurate. Did Columbus actually send any spears to the Spanish sovereigns to get these results cited above?
Where did Ivan Sertima get these wild claims from?
These claims seem outrageous to me. So that's why I'm interested to know if there was ever a Malian civilization capable of these feats.


texts: What became of the French Revolutionary Religion and Calendar?

texts:
During the height of the French Revolution, there was a complete revamping/retooling of French culture and religion: A new calendar based on the metric system and marking the significant events and principles of the Revolution as holidays; dismantling the corrupt institutions of Roman Catholicism (personified by such figures as Lomenie de Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse, during latter part of the reign of Louis XV) and replacing them with state sponsored 'Constitutional' clergy, and eventually even a new religion of the Deist persuasion, to replace Catholicism, etc.

But these innovations and reforms did not persist, although IMO they seem quite ingenious and in tune with modern beliefs and sensibilities. Thomas Carlyle in his "History" derides these innovations, but I myself find them quite palatable in many ways.

So - what happened to those innovations and reforms? In particular: the new French Deism and the metric calendar.

Why/how did they fall by the wayside? Did the Thermidorian Reaction just shove them aside? (Judging from what Carlyle writes, that seems the most likely.) Did Napoleon do away with it all? Did the force of historical inertia simply cause the French to revert to their old ways?


texts: Did the U.S Constitution revoke or merely amend the the Articles of Confederation?

texts:
This may seem like a silly question, but I only ask because of a U.S. Supreme Court case that actually cited the Articles of Confederation.

After the civil war, there is this case called
Texas_v._White, which in the process of judging the case, the Supreme Court had to give an opinion on whether the state of Texas actually legally left the United States during the civil war. The answer was of course no. Chief justice Salmon P. Chase ruled that Texas never legally left the Union.

The interesting part is the reasons he used to justify his opinion. This is important because he acknowledged that the State of Texas and its people had officially voted to leave the Union, but even this process was void because:

  "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary
  relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin,
  mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and
  geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the
  necessities of war, and received definite form and character and
  sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was
  solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were
  found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the
  Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is
  difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than
  by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made
  more perfect, is not?"

A simple search will show that the phase "perpetual union" is not in the Constitution anywhere but all over the place in the Articles of Confederation. This suggests that Chase believed that the Union established by the Constitution is only a refinement of the Union previously established by Articles of Confederation. For matters where the Constitution does not clearly redefine (such as whether the Union is perpetual), the Articles of Confederation retains its legal authority.

Considering that U.S court cases set precedences, the case of Texas vs White seems to suggest that the Articles of Confederation still as legal power today, as long as it does not conflict with the constitution.

Doesn't that sound a little weird?


texts:
What was the best way to travel across Anatolia in 1914?
Specifically, I'm writing a story in which a character needs to travel from Constantinople to Van (a city which would later see protracted fighting and massacres of civilians). This is a distance of 1264 km as the crow flies; travel distance overland would presumably be somewhat greater.
The Baghdad Railway famously runs from Constantinople to Baghdad. From the very fact that it is famous, and considered legendarily expensive and of great geopolitical importance, I'm assuming it is unusual in that time and place, which would mean Anatolia does not have an extensive rail network, and if you want to go someplace that is not close to the Baghdad Railway (which, looking at a map, Van is not), you would be stuck with slower means of transport.
So what would those slower means of transport consist of?
And would they have been disrupted by the start of the war, and if so, how quickly?


texts: Vietnam war: did infantry really have to clear the way for tanks as depicted in "Full Metal Jacket"?

texts:
In the Stanley Kubrick movie "Full Metal Jacket" a soldier being interviewed tells the reporter that his platoon's job is to pave the way for the tanks because the army doesn't want its tanks to run over mines or get blown up by shoulder fired rockets.

This of course would be an absurd policy, to use frail human soldiers to protect armored vehicles. You'd think it would be the other way around.

Was this a plot device by the filmmaker to further illustrate the absurdity of that war, or did this actually happen?


texts:
Wikipedia says that

  The 21st century began on January 1, 2001 and will end on December 31, 2100.

The first decade of 21st century is the 2000s. Here Wikipedia says that

  The 2000s was a decade that began on January 1, 2000, and ended on December 31, 2009.

I don't understand. If the 21st century starts from 2001, then how can it be that the first decade of the 21st century starts from 2000?


texts: What were the legal and societal conditions concerning "interracial love" during 1870s?

texts:
For the timeframe 1850–1880 I have a question related to the slave trade and love, specifically so-called "interracial love".

Was it possible in any way for a slave woman to marry a white man who had money and some power in his society? Like a lawyer or doctor.

Could there be a time or circumstance where it would be possible? And not cause outrage in the society, so that they could be seen in public together?

I found this:

  in 1872, during an interlude in Reconstruction when statutes prohibiting interracial marriage had been suspended. NY Times


texts:
Why would the Victorian military use mounted infantry instead of cavalry?

Was it due to the lower training requirements for man and horse?


texts: How long were Old Frankish dialects spoken in modern France?

texts:
How long were the Germanic dialects commonly subsumed under the term "Frankish" spoken by Frankish people in Northern Gaul, and how long did it take until they were completely supplanted by the Romance dialects that would later evolve into French?
EDIT: I'm aware that Alsatian and Dutch are still spoken today, but only in parts of the country that were either not part of France until historically recently or had never had a Romance-speaking majority even before the fall of the Western Roman Empire or the defeat of Syagrius by Hlodwig. I am talking about the Frankish idioms in regions where Franks were a minority.


texts: What factors prevented the legality of secession being pursued via the courts prior to the outbreak of the Civil War?

texts: I've seen references to Lincoln's political maneuvering to prevent the question of secession from being brought to the supreme court in the days preceding the conflict, presumably for fear a ruling would uphold the state's right to secede. I've found no scholarly articles supporting this claim. Should I assume this is indeed a false claim? Or did pro secession states avoiding pursuing relief through the courts for fear the right to secede would not be affirmed? Texas v White is often cited as the Supreme Court case which settled the secession issue but that ruling occurred in 1869 and would seem tainted with the hindsight of a Northern victory and a chief justice who previously served in President Lincoln's cabinet. What factors prevented seeking judicial ruling prior to the war?


texts: Was residual animism partially responsible for Hitler's rise?

texts:
Although Miller had never bothered to think about it, it was once out of these and other oceans of pine and beech that the old Germanic tribes had swarmed to be checked by Caesar at the Rhine. Later, converted to Christianity, they had paid lip service by day to the Prince of Peace, dreaming only in the dark hours of the ancient gods of strength and lust and power. It was this ancient atavism, the worship in the dark of the private gods of screaming endless trees, that Hitler had ignited with a magic touch.

—Frederick Forsyth, The Odessa File (chapter 17), 1972; with hyperlinks added

Is this literally true — that paganism/animism, residual from before the spread of Christianity, was partially responsible for the German populace's receptivity to Hitler — or is it a bit of invention? Or perhaps somewhere in between: it's not literally true as stated, but somehow metaphorically true?


texts: Before the Great War, was the word "Poland" typically used to refer only to the Russian partition of Poland?

texts:
Before World War 1, Poland was partitionned between Prussia, Austria-Hungary and Russia. However I have strong reasons to suspect that the word "Poland" was at that time referring specifically to the Russian partition.

Example in this map, the word "Poland" is clearly written over the Russian partition, and it is very clear it is not referring to any part of Germany nor Austria-Hungary. I saw other maps where it was the same.

Also, last but not least, people asking polish-related questions on Genealogy stack exchange typically ask questions referring Russia's Poland as simply "Poland", while those referring to Austrian-Hungarian or German "Poland" will refer it as "Austria-Hungary" or "Germany" respectively.


texts: Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an notes and declaration of Independence

texts:
This book alludes to  works of Thomas Jefferson studying the Quran and taking notes on it before writing the "Declaration of Independence".

Also the book mentions that Jefferson had a personal copy of Quran , Where can we find the original notes of Jefferson on Quran?


texts: Did George McGovern publicly support Jimmy Carter in 1976?

texts:
When former President of the United States Gerald Ford died in 2007, George McGovern, who was the Democratic nominee in the 1972 election, gave an interview to Larry King where he said this:

MCGOVERN: I have to tell you something I've never said before publicly. I voted for him in 1976.
KING: What?
MCGOVERN: When he -- yes, I did. And at Thanksgiving dinner that year, I never said anything about this to Eleanor or to her five children. But I told them at Thanksgiving time I had voted for President Ford, even though he lost. And I told them why, because I thought he had come in at a difficult time. I didn't know President Carter very well then. And I just felt more comfortable somehow with Gerry Ford. Whereupon my wife Eleanor said, so did I vote for him.
We went around that table -- this is hard to believe -- all five of my kids voted for him. So they get seven votes out of the McGovern family for President Ford and Senator Dole, my long-time Republican friend.
I voted for Carter again in 1980. So with my brand of political luck, I voted against Carter when he won, I voted for him when he lost. But I can justify both of those votes.

This is remarkable, considering that in 1972 George McGovern ran against Richard Nixon, whom Gerald Ford had served under as Vice President.  (Though as @jwodder pointed out, it was Spiro T. Agnew, not Ford, who was Nixon's running mate in the 1972 election; Ford replaced Agnew as Vice President a year after Nixon was re-elected.)
But my question is, what were George McGovern's public pronouncements at the time?  Did he publicly support Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election, and then just vote for Ford in the voting booth?  Or did he just remain silent?
By the way, I got this tidbit from this Op-Ed by conservative writer Jim Geraghty.
EDIT: This bit of information from the 1972 Democratic Primary might explain McGovern's reticence to support Carter in 1976:

Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter helped to spearhead a "Stop McGovern" campaign.


texts: Why did the Byzantines not try to recover Syria during the war between Ali and Muawiya?

texts:
After the Caliph Othman get killed there was period of instability in the Islamic state for more than five years, and Syria was just taken by Muslims before around twenty years.

Why did the Byzantines not take the chance and try to recapture either Syria or Egypt from the Muslims?


texts: What stopped the British from granting independence to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands?

texts:
On the Wikpedia article about the History of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands:

  During the independence of both India (1947) and Burma (1948), the departing British announced their intention to resettle all Anglo-Indians and Anglo-Burmese on these islands to form their own nation, although this never materialized.

Why did this plan fail to materialize?

I tried to search for the source on Google, but all of the results repeat the same claim without citations.


texts: How did Soviet soldiers resist tanks during the battle of Shumshu?

texts:
During the battle of Shumshu, it is claimed in the Wikipedia article that forces ratio was as follow:

Japan side: 8 500 personnel (combatant and non combatant?) and 77 tanks
Russian side: up to 9 000 personnel, probably mostly combatant, and no tanks

The Soviets landed on the island with heavy ship losses, leading their support weapons being reduced to only ships, aircraft and four guns based on a small island close to the beach. Still, the Soviets repelled all Japanese attacks and extended their beachhead. Later, they managed to land heavier artillery but Japanese surrendered at that time.

The question is: if they had no antitank artillery with them, how did the Soviets resisted to the 77 tanks and tankette? They could have been efficient against the beachhead, so which sort of weapons or tactics destroyed these vehicles?


texts: Was this kind of porcelain service common during some Chinese dynasty?

texts:
Here is a Chinese porcelain service of particular (lotus ?) shape :

The squared cup actually doesn't belong to the same set, but the fact that it fits perfectly makes me wonder : was this kind of service usual during a particular dynasty, and did it have a main purpose (maybe a name) ?

Here is the stamp on the cups, apparently the two first characters are related to the palace, although probably not to high-ranking people.  Update : apparently it reads "Guan jiao nei zao"/"Guan yao nei zao" ("Imperial Kiln for Inner Palace"), but the seal doesn't quite look like most of seals with this sentence : it has a different font and is sealed.


texts: Why did Sir William Stanley support Perkin Warbeck?

texts: It seems odd that the Brother of Lord Thomas Stanley would swap sides so soon after the beginning of Henry VII's reign. I want to ascertain the political, social or economic motivations that could have affected his decision to side with the supposed imposter, rather than support the King he helped usurp the throne in the first place.


texts: Where on a modern map are these areas of Ptolemy's map?

texts: This is a 15th century representation of Ptolemy's map depicting the 'known world' back then based on his work 'Geography'. I would like to know where the area I enclosed in red is bounded by as per modern geography, and whether the details provided in this depiction was accurately based on Ptolemy's description.


texts: California land cases to the US Supreme Court

texts:
After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in the early 1850s, the U.S. Congress created a land commission to review claims of land ownership predating California's accession. Hundreds of claims were filed. Many denials were appealed to the federal courts. One such case was Meader v. Norton, decided in the Supreme Court in 1870.

How many California land cases were eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court?


texts: Were/are the Gaels, Picts and Britons physically distinct?

texts:
Were they only different in culture and language or were there physical differences between the three groups?

Did they all belong to the same ethnic group (Celts)?

For those who don't understand "ethnically distinct", I mean could they be distinguished by shared physical characteristics of face, height or otherwise? Did a Gael look like a Briton or a Pict?

I can't find anything relevant from my preliminary research.


texts: What percentage of people in 14th century England owned any armour?

texts:
Original:
What percentage of England's 14th-15th century population actually owned or wore armour?
Comments:
I am particularly interested in 14th century England when asking this question. Was leather armour available to soldiers of this period? Thank you for your answers.


texts: What are the full names of the discoverers of the Seria oil field?

texts:
History books and the Brunei Shell Petroleum page say that the Seria oil field was jointly discovered by F.F. Marriot (British Malayan Petroleum Company) and by T.G. Cochrane (Sarawak Oilfields Limited).

What are these two men's full names?


texts: How do historians deal with inconsistencies?

texts:
Suppose we have some large, long event whose description is made up of thousands of documents, artifacts, testimonies, and photographs.

If some document is (or some are) found to be forged, if some artifacts are found to have misled, if some testimonies are found to have been dishonest, and some photographs are found to have been faked, how does this knowledge affect the overall reading of this history?

Reference to relevant articles are appreciated.


texts: How many deaths was Al Capone responsible for? Including people killed by his order or as part of gang wars he started? (Looking for an estimate within an order of magnitude).


texts: When and where, exactly, did the concept of a male god eating grapes orginate?

texts: I am sure you have seen, somewhere, of a male god eating grapes or in some classical romantic settings, a half-naked woman putting grapes in the mouth of a half-naked man. I am very curious, where and when did this concept originate?


texts: Why did North America economically prosper, and maintain stable government and South/Central America didn't?

texts:
Disclaimer: I understand this is a generalized statement and doesn't account for every scenario (for example: the US civil war).

In general, why over the course of our whole history has the United States and Canada had a stable government and rich economy and South American countries have dealt with a lower standard of living, coups, cartels, failed governments, and poorer economic conditions and infrastructure?


texts: What were the main reasons that the Industrial Revolution happened in Great Britain? I know there were at least a few other European countries with some of the same advantages that Great Britain had (such as markets for their goods in their colonies). What was it that set Great Britain apart?


texts: Where did Nguyễn Văn Thiệu (Thieu) learn his English?

texts: I just watched a clip of Thieu's speech in English from the early 70s. He seemed to have a good command of English. His Wikipedia page doesn't have much biographical information on his formal education and he didn't appear to have been educated in the West or have gone to an international/missionary school. I know his son went to Eton College, but that still doesn't explain his own knowledge of the English language which is surprisingly adept and surreally sophisticated for someone who was busy serving in the military and fighting wars most of his life.


texts: Who did the middle class in ca. 1850- ca. 1900 France constitute of?

texts:
I am learning about nationalism in Europe in the latter half of the 19th century, and my history book uses the terms "urban working class", "middle class", and "land-owning peasants". What were some of the occupations of the middle class? Would buisiness owners be considered part of the middle class? I thought that the middle class was the urban working class.

Some excerpts from where the book uses class:

"Parliaments and political parties were not the answer [to economic problems of all the people], according to Louis Napoleon. French politicians represented special-interest groups, particularly middle-class ones."

(this is from a list of reasons as to why Louis Napoleon was so popular)
"Second, as Karl Marx stressed at the time, middle-class and pesant proprety owners feared the socialist challenge of urban workers...."

The book I have is "A History of Western Society", 10th edition by Mckay, Hill, Buckler, Crowston, ....


texts: When did retailers stop wrapping purchases in paper and twine?

texts:
Listening to stories from relatives, it sounds like it was a near-universal practice (in the US, before the 1970s) to wrap retail purchases with brown paper and twine.  Searching for information about this practice has been difficult, since I'm not even sure what to call it.  So:

When did people stop doing this?
Is there a name for it?


texts:
Earlier this week, I asked the question, why was China able to unify and not Europe? I was given some very good responses that made me wonder, how unified was the government China. After all, it was for most of it's history, a feudal state, and there were numerous cases where lords created there own currency and rebelled. How unified was the government of ancient China, preferably the Han Dynasty?

What type of government did it have? Feudal?
How centralized was China? Did it have a royal army, or was the army provided by lords?
Any other details are welcome.


texts:
Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino (Raphael) and Donato Bardi (Donatello) are some of the most prominent and influential artists of the Renaissance period. Three of the four (Leonardo, Raphael and Michaelangelo) were all alive at roughly the same time (although da Vinci was a teenager when Donatello died in 1466). My question is, is there any evidence that these artists ever met, or were familiar with the works of the others to any extent?

The fact that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were named after these artists, and I asked the question because of this fact is purely coincidental :-)


texts: What were the circumstances surrounding Forrest's injury at Shiloh?

texts:
In Shelby Foote's, "The Civil War", he describes how Nathan Bedford Forrest was injured during the organized rebel retreat from Shiloh on day 2.  According to Foote, Forrest and his troopers encountered some Union infantry.  Forrest called for a charge, but ended up largely alone among the Union troops.  He ended up being shot in the gut (or the side) at point blank range as some called for him to be knocked off his horse. Forrest grabbed a union soldier, pulled the bluecoat onto Forrest's horse (for cover) and galloped off. Foote also seemed to indicate that Sherman was there?  Or, was Sherman just proximate to the incident because he was commanding troops as part of the Union attack?

In the podcast "History Unplugged: History of the Civil War in 10 Battles, Part 4; The Battle of Shiloh" they tell the story and Forrest just pulling a bluecoat onto his horse for cover and ignore the injury all together.

This article on History.com suggests Forrest was injured leading a cavalry charge and then kept fighting.

Has anyone uncovered/organized some some info specifically about this incident?  It's pretty fantastical (especially crazy if Sherman was there) and I'd like to know what happened.


texts: What historical conditions (culture, technology, events, etc.) contributed to China's current lead in population?

texts:
If their growth rate was comparable to the rest of the world over the past several millenia, then was it only a matter of having a "head start"?  (If so, then how did this initial condition come to be?)

If their growth rate was higher than the rest of the world at times, in which periods were this the case, and for what attributable reasons, if any?

Did sanitation, hygiene, and medical culture and technology unique to East Asian culture have any discernible impact?


texts:
I often hear stories about enemies defeating elephant riders by axing the legs of the elephants.

Does this mean that the commander of the elephant army did not put enough armor on the elephants' legs?


texts: When did the Sateré-Mawé people start using Bullet Ants in their initiation rites?

texts:
I just read the very short wiki article on the Satere-Mawe people from South America. They have an initiation rite where a bunch of Bullet Ants sting someone for 10 minutes, and not only that, but to repeat this a total of 20 times over the years.

I would like to know when that practice started. Can it be dated through oral history? Were there perhaps other tribes in the past that did the same thing? At the very least, I'm hoping for the earliest mention of it in a written account.

I tried to google this but mostly got pop culture websites with no history. Maybe someone knows a search technique that can find this.

Edit: I got a tumbleweed badge for this question. I'll take it as a good sign to open a bounty.


texts: What jobs were available for migrants from the country to Rome?

texts:
I've read that the during the late Roman republic and early empire there was a great migration from country to urban living. Historians estimate in peninsular Italy 15%-20% of the population lived in a city. That's a staggering number, especially when you consider both the notoriously deadly living conditions that existed in Roman tenements, and the very real threat of a civil war or military purge.

And yet, as the link above notes, 15-20% is the kind of number that I'd normally associate with early industrialization -- what you see when automation begins disrupting traditional modes of production, and factory jobs start luring agricultural workers into urban life. But of course, the Romans didn't have factories to make factory jobs in.

So my question is, what were all these people doing once they got to Rome? Was there employment waiting for them, and of what kind? What kinds of employment and economic infrastructure supported the Roman urban poor, and what working conditions did they face?


texts: Identification of a badge with Russian text

texts:
Here's a curious badge that I found somewhere years ago, but didn't know whom to ask.

 (click to enlarge)

Could someone please identify it? I learnt the Cyrillic script and tried googling it, but couldn't find anything.


texts:
Harkhuf, an Egyptian official, set out for a place called Yam, which a chronicle states was far south of Egyptian boundaries. But where exactly was Yam? Was Yam later called Nubia? Are Yam and Nubia the same thing?

Harkhuf was an official who lived during the sixth dynasty, serving under  Merenre I and Pepi II. The story of his expeditions is preserved in the inscriptions in his tomb.


texts: Usage of "native American" in the 18th Century

texts:
I have a case of an 18th century white man referring to his nationality as native American, meaning he was born in America. This is on his census form. Was this usage common?

For clarity:
I'm asking because I was able to uncover a lot of material that seems to suggest that the usage became quite common later in the 19th century, although this seems unusual to me for the 18th century. I am interested obviously how a term with a long history of usage by white Americans could be transferred to American Indians, that's not part of this of question.


texts: I am trying to find the first use of Santa Claus in an advert. I have found one from 1868 on Wikimedia, but I could not find anything to say that that was the earliest occurrence. Are they any older adverts?


texts: Riveted mail - flat or round rings? Die cut rings mixed with riveted ones?

texts: I'm interested in the chainmail worn in the 14th and 15th century. As far as I know, almost all chainmail found in Europe has been riveted and woven 4 in 1. But I hear that there were chainmails made of rings of both flattened wire and round wire. Which was more popular? Also, I heard about some findings were the mail was made of rows of riveted and whole (die cut) rings. Does anyone know where were those found and where to get some pictures, dating and descriptions of them?


texts: Why did Denmark, unlike in other 'rich' nations, favour agriculture in the 1920s?

texts:
According an article on the Economic History Association website, An Economic History of Denmark,

  Structural development during the 1920s, surprisingly for a rich
  nation at this stage, was in favor of agriculture. The total labor
  force in Danish agriculture grew by 5 percent from 1920 to 1930.

This increase in the agricultural labour force was due to an increase in the number of self-employed farmers. While I haven't checked every other 'rich' country (presumably meaning most of Western Europe, North America and Australia), the agricultural labour force declined in the US, the UK, France, the Netherlands and Germany in the 1920s.

The fact that agriculture accounted for 80% of Danish exports would seem to be a plausible explanation for this, until one considers that the land policy

  actively supported a further parceling out of land into small holdings
  and restricted the consolidation into larger more viable farms.

So, why did 1920s Danish governments apparently move in the opposite direction to other 'rich' countries by favouring agriculture in terms of structural development?


texts: Before iron was common, what did common people use for door hinges?

texts: Door hinges are very old, but they've usually been made out of iron or bronze.  Before metal was widely available and inexpensive, what did common people use for door hinges?


texts: Why didn't the Franklin expedition seek assistance from the Inuit?

texts:
The Franklin expedition has been in the news again recently, as the wreck of the HMS Terror was recently located by the Arctic Research Foundation.  This follows the discovery of the wreck of the HMS Erebus by the same foundation in 2014.

One thing I have never quite understood about the expedition:  why didn't the explorers "go native" and live among the Inuit to survive?  The Wikipedia article on the expedition notes that

  Two expeditions between 1860 and 1869 by Charles Francis Hall ... found camps, graves, and relics on the southern coast of King William Island, but none of the Franklin expedition survivors he believed would be found among the Inuit. Though he concluded that all of the Franklin crew were dead, he believed that the official expedition records would yet be found under a stone cairn.  With the assistance of his guides Ebierbing and Tookoolito, Hall gathered hundreds of pages of Inuit testimony. Among these materials are accounts of visits to Franklin's ships, and an encounter with a party of white men on the southern coast of King William Island near Washington Bay.

So there were definitely Inuit people in the area, and it was certainly conceivable to their contemporaries that the explorers would have joined Inuit society out of self-preservation.  The Inuit oral tradition is also quite strong (Inuit stories were quite helpful in locating the two ships), so presumably if a white man had joined an Inuit tribe, such a story would have been preserved;  but I haven't been able to find any mention of such a story in my (limited) web research.

This may be an impossible question to answer definitively, but are there any plausible reasons why the Franklin crew chose to remain apart from the natives, even though it led to their eventual demise?


texts: Why didn't Nazi Germany destroy document archives while retreating from occupied territories?

texts:
In a related question How did residents of Estonia and Latvia prove that their family settled in the country prior to 1940, in order to become citizens in 1989? an interesting comment was left by @Gnudiff:

There were several archive institutions in Latvia, dealing with different kinds/topics of documents. Some part of Latvian Historical archive (dealing with documents pertaining to territory of modern day Latvia starting from 12th century) was evacuated during WW2 (link in Latvian latvijasarhivi.lv/index.php?&115 ) but plenty remained and as far as I know, mostly preserved. Neither Germans nor Soviets were ones to wantonly burn documents. Unlike books.

I was surprised to learn that the Nazi army apparently didn't bother destroying the archives as they were retreating from occupied lands, even though that seems like a great opportunity to make your enemy's life more difficult when they return to power. I.e. it would've been extremely challenging to prove land ownership or inheritance rights.
Why was this the case? Was it seen as too minor of a concern compared to destroying resources such as railroads and ship yards? Or perhaps even the Nazi army didn't want to intervene too much into how the local bureaucracy is run?


texts: What was the first recorded use of Aerial Weapons in warfare?

texts: Fighter planes were popularised by their extensive use in WWI. What Aerial weapons were used before that period (if any)? What is earliest recorded use of Aerial Attacking and what was the technology employed?


texts: Why didn't pre-Norman English kings build stone town walls?

texts:
This question is about defensive city walls, not longer walls such as the Great Wall of China or Hadrian's wall.

After the Norman conquest, many defensive city walls were built by Norman kings in troubled areas. But why did the pre-Norman kings not build these walls?
Did they think there was no need of such walls?
I disagree. We know that building or burhs was common during the period1. England certainly faced many domestic as well as international battles1. We know from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that Roman walls, that is stone walls originally built by Romans during their occupation of Britain, were of strategic value in battles. There is evidence that such walls were tended to and maintained by quite a few pre-Norman English kings (e.g., Alfred with the London walls and Æthelflæd with the Chester city walls [1, 3]).
Was it a question of money?
Robert Tombs1 writes that England was quite rich at the time. He does not cite or note how rich but he notes that Æthelred was able to raise £250,000 to pay off the Danish invaders. Edward the Confessor built Westminster Abbey in Romanesque style which would have cost a lot of money. He also writes that some Anglo-Saxon kings were richer than their European counterparts and even their later Norman successors. But besides these one off claims, do we know how rich pre-Norman English kingdoms were and how much such wall building would have cost at that time? Was the money spent elsewhere?
Was it a question of skill?
If it was not a question of money then was it a question of know-how? We know that stone defensive walls were being built on the European mainland and in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire well into the 10th century as a continuation of ancient Roman era practices2. England did have trade connections to the continent --English wool was sold in France and Italy and Byzantine pottery from the 6th century has been found in England[4]. England also had diplomatic connections to various mainland kingdoms and also the Eastern Roman empire (Wessex records from Alfred's time record diplomatic visits both ways, Cnut attended Conrad II's coronation1, Edward the confessor sent ambassadors to Roman emperors[5] etc.). So if the mainland Europeans and Byzantines knew how to build walls then surely such knowledge could have come to England.

References:

The English and their history, Robert
Tombs

Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, Judith
Herrin

Wikipedia:ChesterCityWalls

National
Trust: How did Byzantium influence the British Isles

Byzantine
Ambassador:
Agreed this is an internet source but it appears well cited.

The English and Byzantium: A Study of Their Role in the Byzantine
Army in the Later Eleventh Century. This reference is
mainly concerned with eleventh century but there are some references
to earlier exchanges between Byzantium and England.


texts: War Guilt Methodology: Was Germany solely to blame for WWI?

texts:
Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles places the blame of the war solely on Germany and her allies. This is the quote:

  The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

Many historians who use the war guilt methodology have different views as to what countries in question were to blame for provoking the world war. My professor explained that he has read books arguing that the weight the blame is on Russia for siding with Serbia in the Balkan Wars. The First World War could then be viewed as the Third Balkan War. Another popular view is that Great Britain was at fault. Had she allied with Germany and put aside her fears of Germany's growing navy, there would have been no war. Great Britain was itching for a war against Germany because there was a great fear that Germany would destroy the balance of power and replace it with a German hegemony.

Are there any historians who blame World War I on any country other than Germany?


texts: How sophisticated were efforts to track the spread of past pandemics?

texts:
I am currently inquiring into the COVID Tracking Project for a first-year university course. I would like to give some historical context, i.e. past attempts at epidemic tracking.
Searching the web revealed very little information on this topic, and it is unlikely that a 2003 SARS tracking site (if there was such a thing) would still be available for analysis.
Are current pandemic resources such as the COVID Tracking Project totally unprecedented in terms of completeness and sophistication, or do they stand on the shoulders of earlier undertakings?
P.S. I am also interested in pre-Internet epidemic tracking. After all, some of the most interesting plagues occurred many centuries ago.


texts: Flag with 13 white stars and a crescent on red background

texts:
What flag is this?

I saw this flag as a sticker on a car from another country. I could not recognize the plate so I do not know its nationality.

My search on Google/images resulted mostly in the Madrid flag...

...and the ECSC flag.

But those are certainly not correct. I write from Spain and I have never seen a variant of the Madrid flag such as this, neither official nor unofficial.

The image I offer is not a photo, but a "reconstruction" made by me with MS Paint, but I am pretty sure that it is faithful in colors and in the number of stars and their position.

(I edit to add some clues on the license plate)

I've been looking for Middle-Eastern and North-African plates, because of the crescent moon on the flag, and I'm quite sure this was not an Arabic plate. Plates in most Muslim countries usually include Arabic numerals and letters, like this one:

European plates usually consist of black numbers on a white background and "no frills". But this flag had a comparatively colorful background, green, blue, like a bank note. It's possible that it was a plate from the USA, like this one:

Important CAVEAT: I couldn't see any flower, nor the name of the state. I'm not saying that it was an American plate. But it had green, blue and white colors which made it look like a banknote.


texts: Why did Xerxes need a canal across Mount Athos peninsula?

texts:
As a preparation to his invasion of Greece, Xerxes ordered to dig a canal across
Mount Athos peninsula. Digging this canal took 3 years. When I look at the map I see that this peninsula is a part of the larger Chalkidiki peninsula which has the shape of a fork with three very long teeth. Mount Athos peninsula is one
of the teeth.

Digging the canal made it possible to cross Mount Athos peninsula by the fleet, instead of going around it.
But then the fleet had to go round two other teeth of the fork of almost the same length. So what was the rationale
behind digging this canal at an enormous expense for 3 years ?


texts: Was the painting of men's nails a rare practice in the mid-20th century?

texts:
I came across the following description of Hermann Göring after his capture in 1945 in Elizabeth Borgwardt's A New Deal for the World (On Google Books):

The impression of a dissolute voluptuary - "infinitely corrupt...recall[ing] the madam of a brothel...a sexual quiddity" - was enhanced by his red lacquered fingernails and toenails and the 340 pounds he carried on his five-foot-six-inch frame

A quick google search seems to show this is a well-known fact about him. Of course, in above context and in many online contexts this is usually a side note to help portray his unusual or ridiculous presentation or make allegations about his sexuality.
However, in earlier times painting the nails seems to have been done by Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese and early Roman men of warriors or aristocratic classes. And we find references to this habit in some earlier source material:

"Here is a youth of fifty, with long grey hair, and a grey-suited man
with scarlet lacquered fingernails, leading a small grimy dog." p113
Kings Cross Calling 1941
"Count Maurice tugged irritatedly at his short beard and perfumed oil
from it came off onto his painted fingernails." Silver Leopard 1955
p140

Was Göring's painting of his nails a reflection of a practice less exclusively limited to women at some point in the past, let us say mid-20th century?


texts: Why are so many metros underground? Isn't that more expensive than an elevated system?

texts:
Starting with the London Underground in 1863, why are so many metros/subways built underground (as opposed to en elevated metro)? This requires a lot of digging and excavation, which to me seems a lot more expensive than an elevated metro like the Chicago L.

Paris, New York, Moscow, and others have also chosen underground metros. So there seems to be some almost universal reason of history. In fact the only major metro that's above ground, that I'm aware of, is the Chicago L.

Why was this? Was there no alternative? To me it seems an elevated system would cost no more than a bunch of bridges brought together, whereas big tunnels underground must be hugely expensive.

Was it something besides costs, such as the streets simply being too narrow for at-grade or above-grade system? Was there no good bridge-engineering in the early 20th century? Or is digging those tunnels somehow cheaper than an elevated system?

Edit: Because there is so much info here, I opened a related question about Why Chicago chose an L.


texts: Why did England and Portugal cheap out on the Battle of Aljubarrota?

texts:
One of the most important and famous battles in the Iberian Peninsula took place in Aljubarrota. There were two main parties:

Castile (with Aragonese, French and Italian support)
Portugal (with English support)

According to Wikipedia, there were over 2,000 French heavy cavalry fighting for the Castilians. Their army had a total number of around 31,000 units. Portugal on the other hand had a total of 6,500 units. Only 100 of them being English.

Portugal had a decisive victory despite being heavily outnumbered. But that raises the question:

Even though Portugal won, why did Portugal and England cheap out on troops to fight against Castile?

   Surely it couldn't be because they believed that one Lusitan > 2 Spaniards and a Frenchmaid


texts: How would a date be written on a German manuscript circa 1445? Would it be written in Roman numerals, or written out in regular numbers?


texts: Has anyone scanned ancient structures with x-rays or similar? And if so, were any major discoveries made by doing so?

texts:
Inspired by curious' question; I now have my own:

Has anyone actually* scanned the pyramids or similar ancient structures with x-rays, gamma-rays, muons, ultrasound, thermal diffusion, gravity waves or other methods to figure out what's inside?

If so, have any major historical discoveries occurred solely because of such non-destructive scanning?

 * Proposals to do so rather more common.


texts: When did keeping convicts in Australia become unprofitable?

texts:
When the first penal colony was founded in Australia in 1788, keeping convicts was profitable as a form of slave labour.

Today, Australia is one if the world's most expensive places to keep prisoners.

What year did keeping a convict in Australia go from being profitable to a drain on the public purse?  Approximates are okay.


texts: Was it possible for an 11-year old boy to travel from the north of Scotland to Paris in 1777?

texts:
I'm researching a musical scholar called John Gunn, born 1766 near Golspie, north of Inverness in the far north of Scotland. He describes a musical performance in Paris that he witnessed in 1777 (and I know the exact concert). Was it normal for young people to make a journey like this alone? The usual explanations for Scots travelling abroad don;t really apply to him (he wasn't a Jacobite, he wasn't Roman Catholic, and the clearances hadn't begun at that time). The 1871 fire at the Hotel de Ville in Paris destroyed many records including, I think, things like documents concerning visiting foreigners. Any suggestions as to how he made the trip, or how to find any records of him in Paris? I think I've tried the obvious routes...
Additional information (added by @fred2 via commenters)
John Gunn (c. 1765-1824) (see wikipedia and DNB) was a cellist, writer on music and professor who studied in London and taught at Cambridge. His wife, who he married circa 1801 in Edinburgh, was a pianist and also an author.
DNB claims he was born in Edinburgh. The original poster does not provide a source for his assertion that he was born instead in Golspie, but it is fair to note that the old DNB is very often wrong/out of date.


texts: How many recorded incidents are there of attacks on Australian soil?

texts:
There are two that I am aware of:

Japanese midget submarines entering Sydney Harbour
The bombing of Darwin 1942 and 1943

I am not looking for Naval battles but actual attacks on Australian soil.


texts: Were Roman gladiators ever enlisted into the military?

texts:
Were Roman gladiators ever enlisted into the actual Roman military? I have heard of Roman soldiers becoming gladiators but not the other way around.

I imagine this would only happen if the Roman generals were desperate, sorely needing men for a campaign, as I doubt that gladiators were trained to fight like actual Roman soldiers.


texts:
Did Hans Christian Oersted ever marry, and if so, whom?

Google is really short on answers.


texts: Why did many Hellenic or Hellenized names in antiquity end in -bazos or -dates?

texts:
Ancient names ending with bazos (or bazus), eg megabazos(great-x), Artabazos (again great-x), Pharnabazos.

And Dates (Mithradates, Tiridates).

I know Mithra was a deity, what does the second half of the name mean (dates).

Please note I know who these people are, I'm interested in the meaning of the second part of their names.


texts: Why did Romans use the sesterce in written monetary records when the coin itself was so rarely used?

texts:
In the vast majority of cases, Roman writers and government officials recorded amounts of money (money donated, value of items bought/sold, amount given in wills, etc.) in sesterces.  Given that the sesterce was such a rarely-minted and rarely-used coin, why did the Romans choose to use that denomination for virtually all monetary records?**

*Admittedly, this is largely based on personal research: I have never seen a single mention of a sesterce coin found in Pompeii, Herculaneum, or a Roman British hoard, nor mention of the sesterce on a menu or graffiti.  I'm sure there must have been some, but I've never come across it even once.  The coinage in use in all those locations seemed to be the aureus, denarius, and as exclusively, despite widespread contemporaneous use of sesterces in records.


texts: What did the Japanese military do to maintain their fighting edge during the Edo era/Bakufu (1603-1868)?

texts:
After Tokugawa unified Japan, it entered a long era of militarized peace 1603-1868, with very limited warfare, a severely isolationist attitude and strict limits to weaponry (guns were essentially outlawed).
But the military class retained an outsized influence on Japan and rapidly took over foreign policy, culminating with the Manchuria incident in 1931 and Pearl Harbor in 1941, launching Japan into WW2.
What, if anything, did the Japanese military do to maintain tactical/strategic theoretical knowledge between 1603 and 1868?

internal police actions?  like rebellious lords.
kriegspiel type theoretical games?
large scale maneuvers?
external actions (maybe fighting piracy)?
was there even a formal centralized military as we would understand it?  how was it organized?

Remember, this is not in the context of a pacifist state where the military is at best grudgingly budgeted for, this is in a place that takes deep pride in its martial prowess, albeit during a period of extended peace.
Why do I ask...
... about a long-ago historical period during which pretty much no one had anything to do with Japan, let alone Japan's military?
The Japanese were often quite clever militarily.  Ask the Russians at Tsushima or the English in Singapore.  They had morale, advanced tactics in their carrier fleet, and occasional rather good weaponry, like the Long Lance torpedo.
Still, to my mind, it seems as if their military occasionally operated in an idealized/unrealistic view of military operations, which might not have been the case with armed forces with more recent relevant peer-to-peer combat experience.  It seems to me as if the Japanese, with a very strong military tradition, yet extremely limited recent experience, attempted to deduce the theory of modern warfare from first principles and fell into the traps commonly seen when theory lacks experience.

launching WW2 on a strategy of quick gains, then perimeter defense, thus ceding the initiative to the US afterwards.  It's been long said that no one wins a war by just defense.

over-complicated plans and strategies (Midway and Coral Sea had multiple battle groups with limited communication capabilities.  No plan survives contact with the enemy would be basic Western military axiom there.

non-concentration of forces. see above.

reliance on mass wave attacks, despite having seen the effect of machine guns in WW1.

inappropriate training regimen for their carrier pilots - the elite was very good, but there was limited thought given to ensuring sufficient replacements.

treatment of POWs.  most countries realize the benefits of more humane treatment when engaging in repeated cycles of warfare with their peers.

I don't want to belabor the above points (they are opinion-based), but they illustrate the reasoning behind my question.  These seem like the blunders of a smart, but amateur, approach to warfare.
Back to my question:  what was the Japanese army up to during from 1603 to 1868?


texts: Why were blackletter typefaces abolished in Germany?

texts:
Blackletter typefaces were exclusively used in German and German-friendly countries for several centuries. They were often commonly and errornously called "Fraktur" in German, but the correct name was gebrochene Schrift while Fraktur was only one (but the most used) typeface.

Wikipedia Commons, Public Domain

Wikipedia’s take on the topic is roughly this:

  On January 3, 1941, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, or more precisely Martin Bormann, issued a circular to all public offices which declared Fraktur to be Jewish letters and prohibited their further use. German historian Albert Kapr has speculated that the régime had realized that Fraktur would inhibit communication in the territories occupied during World War II.

But this seems a strange reason for people that valued their own ideology over everything else. Especially the allegation of “Jewish letters” strikes me as odd, seeing how Fraktur originates in the early 16th century and was commissioned by Maximilian I, an emperor that kicked the Jews out of some regions in 1496 and in 1509 passed the “Imperial Confiscation Mandate” which ordered the destruction of all Jewish literature apart from the Bible. Seems pretty in line with what the National Socialist German Workers’ Party did.

So why was Fraktur abolished, then?


texts:
For Alexander, what were the incentives of expanding to the west vs to the east?

If Alexander would have decided to go westwards, would it be as successful and rewarding in comparison to his eastwards expansion.


texts:
Here is a question from CollegeBoard's practice APUSH exam... I'm having trouble answering it.  Washington's Farewell warned against the dangers of international alliances and the formation of political parties, right?  Knowing this, I still am unsure of what the answer is (personally,  I think it's A but I feel I am incorrect).

  Which of the following groups most strongly opposed Washington’s point
  of view in the address?

  (A) Democratic-Republicans

  (B) New England merchants

  (C) Southern plantation owners

  (D) Federalists

My reasoning for why it's A (taken from my comment): If you want my reasoning, it's because Washington was shown to support Hamilton (a Federalist). Also, the Democratic-Republicans wanted to support France in the war against Britain, which violated Washington's neutrality policy. However, Hamilton wanted to side with the British for possible economic advantages, meaning that Federalist motives also conflicted with the ideas in Washington's address. That's why I'm confused, because my reasoning appears to be self-contradicting. I also don't know too much about the political stance of merchants and plantation owners.


texts: What was Asir's role in the Arab Revolt?

texts:
The Arab Revolt against the Ottomans is portrayed as being primarily a Hejazi phenomenon but I have read (briefly) that Asir (now part of Saudi Arabia), a territory between Hejaz and Yemen revolted first and the Sherif of Mecca actually fought against them on behalf of the Ottomans. Asir actually survived until ~1932 before being conquered by Ibn Saud.
Any experts know why Asir revolted, what did it do during the revolt, and what were its relations with Hejaz during the more famous part of the revolt?


texts: Were Draco’s laws particularly “draconian” at the time they were enacted?

texts:
There is a lot of talk about “draconian” laws at the moment, which got me thinking about Draco.
As I understand it, Draco produced the first written constitution of Athens, which stood for about 30 years, before being substantially repealed (or replaced) by Solon.
While the punishments in the code were quite severe (it seems likely that the only punishments in the code are death or banishment), as far as I can tell the system it replaced was blood feuds and personal vengeance. Were the punishments in the newly codified law more severe than that?
Aristotle says, in The Athenian Constitution, about the law before Draco:

The Council of Areopagus had the official function of guarding the laws, but actually it administered the greatest number and the most important of the affairs of state, inflicting penalties and fines upon offenders against public order without appeal [...]

So it seems like before the law was codified, it was essentially whatever the Aristocracy said it was. (Draco was a member of that Aristocracy, so the code still heavily favoured them.)
In Politics, Aristotle seems to imply that Draco’s laws were merely the existing laws written down:

There are laws of Draco, but he legislated for an existing constitution, and there is nothing peculiar in his laws that is worthy of mention, except their severity in imposing heavy punishment

(Note: While this appears to answer the question, saying that they are peculiar in imposing heavy punishment, Politics is primarily a work of philosophy, and I think the broader passage here is more of a categorisation of different laws, not intended as a history per se. So my read on this passage is “Draco codified the existing law. That law is unremarkable except for the fact that it imposes heavy punishments.” But I haven’t found any more modern works discussing this.)
When Plutarch wrote about Solon repealing the code he said:

Therefore Demades, in later times, made a hit when he said that Draco's laws were written not with ink, but blood. And Draco himself, they say, being asked why he made death the penalty for most offences, replied that in his opinion the lesser ones deserved it, and for the greater ones no heavier penalty could be found

But this doesn’t sound to me like he actually thinks this is true, more like he is relaying what “they” say about Draco. He is also writing hundreds of years later.
Did Draco just have the thankless job of writing down the laws of an unjust society, or is there any reason to believe that his laws were unusually “draconian” compared to the situation they replaced, as in Plutarch’s anecdote? Was a petty thief more, or less likely to be killed for it after the code was introduced?


texts:
Were exchanged prisoners from Elmira taken to a single or multiple exchange points?
My gg-grandfather died en-route after being exchanged in February, 1865. Would he have been in route to City Point or some other destination?


texts: How were old wooden warships with structural damage to the hull repaired at dock?

texts: How were ships, with cannon damage done to the hull, repaired at dock?


texts: Why were Morocco and Tunisia made a French protectorate, but Algeria annexed as part of France?

texts:
This question is somewhat related to this one.

The three maghreban countries of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are almost like three sisters and share everything in common culturally and historically. All three were conquered by France in the 19th century.

However, while Morocco and Tunisia were made French protectorates and considered colonies, Algeria was annexed and considered to be part of France proper until 1962, and that even though Algeria was separated from france since the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, and is connected to France only by sea. Why did the French make such a difference?


texts: When the British left India, who authorized standstill agreements between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu?

texts:
When the British left India, Mysore (Karnataka) rulers agreed to instrument of accession by newly formed Indian government. However there were standstill agreements which are still leading to disputes, while also legally maintaining the princely properties with utmost care. India even retained the British Armed Forces and ranks.
Who authorized state standstill agreements


texts: Why did Meiji government consider switching from Japanese to English?

texts:
During the Meiji restoration, the Meiji govenment sought to switch Japan's national language from Japanese to English.

Who and why advocated that?

Ultimately, why was it unsuccessful?

Source: The Role of English and Other Foreign Languages in Japanese Society which does offer some explanation but not enough to my liking.


texts: To what extent does the dictionary of Samuel Johnson represent English as it was spoken in his day?

texts: My understanding is that Johnson embarked upon his dictionary precisely because he found others useless or archaic, and that his work was very well received within his own time. But I wanted to ask if historians have a more concrete idea of how closely his English resembled the language as it was spoken in England during his lifetime, and how unevenly that may apply to speakers of different classes?


texts:
What sort of balance in motivation existed for the first Crusade between answering a plea for assistance from the Byzantine Empire and reclamation of Jerusalem?

Obviously it would vary between individuals at the time of the Crusade's inception.  I want to get an overview of the presumably different sort of motivations that existed for people in various positions.

Any answers from personal accounts(such as Pope Urban II,  Godfrey of Bouillon or common people/Crusaders) or a from governing bodies(the Church) is what I'm looking for.

I read the question and answers on the other topic, it did not touch on the feelings of common people or Crusaders. While it answers part of the question, I was hoping for some examples of people in more varied positions of power and influence.


texts: What are the current obligations of Treaty of Lausanne?

texts:
The Turkish President Erdogan and his followers are always talking about that they should update the Treaty of Lausanne or even they are claiming that it will expire on 2023 and they are saying that the country will be free from certain obligations.

They have pretty wild claims and I didn't really tap in the full list of claims. But, they are mostly talking about the usage of the valuable natural resources like oil, gas or boron (I am not sure if boron is valuable as they claim though). More wilder, they are saying there will be a referendum in Mosul and Kirkuk to ask if they want to be part of Turkey. Really wild claims!

But, what I am curious and I want to ask in this platform is like this. Are there, really, any obligations of the treaty that are still in effect? I know that Bosphorus and Dardanelles are kind of international waters under the supervision of Turkish authority. But, is there anything else that Turkey can't do due to the agreement? If there is, is there really an expiry date for the obligations?

This was an ongoing narrative from the islamic party. Moreover; recently, Erdogan has talked about the revisiting the treaty again when he was talking with the Greek journalist. Turkish T24 Newspaper Article

I highly suspect that this is just a internal politics BS like most of his other claims. Yet, I would like to be enlightened from an expert worked in this area.

Edit:

There is a historian/journalist Murat Bardakci who had written about the subject and he said the claims are completely BS. But, I want to get a fresh opinion. The article is, unfortunately, in Turkish and the Google translate doesn't work well for Turkish.


texts: What did Mirsky mean by this quote (Russian Revolution 1905)?

texts:
I'm reading Orlando Figes' Revolutionary Russia.

Prince Mirsky was appointed Minister for the Interior by Tsar Nicholas and was much more progressive than his predecessor. He convened a congress of middle-class liberals and they drafted some proposals for reform to present to Nicholas, including the suggestion of an advisory parliamentary body. Nicholas rejected this proposal on the grounds that it undermined his god-given right to rule over the people.

After this rejection, Mirsky said, 'Everything has failed. Let us build jails!'

What did he mean by this?


texts: Were there any attempts to achieve peace in WW1 before 1918?

texts: Did any of the great powers reach out to try and resolve the conflict before the Central Powers surrendered in 1918? Not counting the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, of course, because that didn't end the war as a whole.


texts: Why did Germany officially acknowledge the contents of the Zimmerman telegram?

texts:
The Zimmerman telegram was a diplomatic message from officials in Germany to the Mexican president, sent in 1917. After being intercepted and decoded by Britain's intelligence community, its contents were found to be an offer of monetary compensation, retaking of previously-held lands, and a strategic alliance between Germany and Mexico, in exchange for Mexico's military aid in the First World War should American involvement become inevitable.

After the contents of the letter became public and sparked outrage, German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmerman publicly confirmed the authenticity of the message, further sparking controversy, and ultimately cementing America's already fairly definitive alignment against Germany for the duration of the war.

Why would Germany publicly acknowledge the contents of the letter, though? Denial of the letter's contents or authenticity (possibly mixed with an accusation that the UK had forged it, in its own interests) may have created hesitation and confusion among America's military brass, which could've given Germany an advantage during the rest of the war.


texts: Why did United States choose conflict with Japan over China?

texts:
Why did United States choose conflict with Japan over China ?
Especially from 1937 (2nd Sino-Japan war) compared with 1894 (1st Sino-Japan war which basically were an conflict about influence and control in Korea.)
Compared with the Boxer rebellion and the allied forces behavior in Beijing (looting the imperial palace and burning it down.) Together with the very strong anti-Chinese sentiments in the US after the end of 1800's (Workingmen's party of California).
My thinking is that until the 2nd Sino-Japan war, taking over parts of China were basically the goal of every Western country including the United States. So what changed the ideology in the US towards Japan behaving in this way (or did it really change)?
Could one such reason be because FDR, a Democrat was in the White house after a string of Republican presidents (except for Wilson)?


texts: How were/are days subdivided in non-Gregorian calendars?

texts:
In the Gregorian calendar, a day is subdivided into 24 hours, which each contain 60 minutes, which each contain 60 seconds. Internationally, a derived version of this calendar called UTC is used nowadays which still basically* follows this rule.

In the Calendrical Calculations paper by Nachum Dershowitz and Edward M. Reingold it is mentioned that in the Hebrew calendar, a day is subdivided into 24 hours, each containing 1080 'parts'.

While subdivisions of 24 and 60 are mathematically 'smart' (you're able to divide 60 in equal halves, thirds, quarters, fifths, sixths and tens) I wonder what kind of day subdivisions were used in other parts of the world, such as ancient China and ancient Persia. I also wonder about civilizations such as the Mayans: They ought to have had their own way of day-subdividing, right?

It seems that nowadays these have been mostly replaced by the Gregorian hours/minutes/seconds and it is very hard to find information about the timekeeping units that have been used in the past.

What other day subdivisions have been used besides hour/minute/day subdivisions by other calendars and why?


texts: What was the motivation behind prohibiting hunting in King's forests?

texts:
One of the typical pop culture motifs surrounding the Merry Men stories is the concept of them poaching the game and being hunted by the Law (or at least, Wardens) for that.

This seems rather counter-intuitive to me: it's not like game wasn't plentiful; and prohibiting lower classes from hunting it only seems to have negative consequences all-around: the people are more hungry; and less satisfied; and you have to spend extra on enforcing the poaching laws.

If so, are there any meaningful reasons for why the King wouldn't just say "hey, anyone has permissions to hunt in Sherwood Forest!", which appears to be a win-win for everyone involved (the King gets better fed and thus more productive populace, less discontent and rebellion. The local authorities get to stop spending resources running down poachers). And since the King's the one decreeing this out of the largesse of his heart and care for his subjects, there's no loss of face for the monarch.


texts: Kurds and their relation to the start of civilization?

texts: Is there a relationship between these folks and the start of civilization? Mehrdad Izady suggests that they started civilization via establishing the agricultural production. How can this be possible, the Kurdish area is within a severely mountainous geography? And why they couldn't have any important impact in history like Greeks or Persians?


texts: Who considered themselves as "Prussian"?

texts:
This is very confusing to me. The word "Prussian" means a lot of different things and has a lot of connotations (such as imperialism, militarism, …), while simultaneously describing a geographical region that was part of Germany before 1945, and also a political state which has almost nothing to do with the region…

Since Prussia started out as a very small state and conquered pretty much all northern Germany with a combination of force and political malice, and then united Germany within their uncontested leadership, it is hard to have any idea who really identified themselves as "Prussian".

I have a fictional book (made for German language learners) that takes place in inter-war Bavaria, there is someplace a joke about people arriving late, and their professor answer them:

  Pünktlichkeit ist eine Preussische Tradition

  (German for : Arrival on time is a Prussian tradition)

This particular quote really made me scratch my head because this book was only about Bavaria, which on paper has nothing to do with Prussia, so why would the guy give a damn about so-called "Prussian tradition" ?

So who used to consider themselves "Prussian"? Did people that were in political Prussia, but not geographical Prussia, ever feel "Prussian", or did they always continue to consider themselves Rheinlanders, Hessians, Hanoverians, etc, etc… ?

In the case where someone was part of Prussia, but did not feel "Prussian", is there a case where they claimed they were illegally occupied by Prussia?

Last but not least: Is there still people who consider themselves "Prussian" today (especially refugees from annexed eastern Germany and their descendants?)


texts: How prevalent was pork in Arabia before Arabs conversion to Islam?

texts:
Before Islam and its prohibition of pork, was it a commonly eaten food? Or was it already prohibited by other religions/cultures? Or was it a kind of uncommon food, which was then prohibited? We also know that Jews (who were in the Middle East during Muhammad's time), also prohibit pork

Pigs doesn't seem to be the kind of animals that live in the area, although maybe it only appears that way now because of the Islamic prohibition..


texts: Why did anyone respect Marbury v. Madison?

texts:
I have always had the impression that Marbury v. Madison gave the United States Supreme court its first jolt of power. However, I recently learned more about the political circumstances surrounding the case and am now confused.

Here is how Wikipedia sets the stage:

  Marbury v. Madison also created a difficult political dilemma for Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court. If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury and issued a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commission, Jefferson and Madison would probably have simply ignored the order, which would have made the Court look impotent and emphasized the "shakiness" of the judiciary. On the other hand, a plain and simple ruling against Marbury would have given Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans a clear political victory.

  Marshall avoided both problems and solved the dilemma.

But Jefferson disagreed with Chief Justice Marshall's decision anyway. In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson writes:

  John Marshall’s twistifications in the case of Marbury ... shew how dexterously he can reconcile law to his personal biasses.

This is where I'm confused. The timeline seems to run like this:

The court is so weak that Jefferson would ignore any ruling against him.
The court, essentially, rules against Jefferson indirectly by giving itself the power of judicial review.
???
The court has the undisputed power of judicial review.

What happened at step 3? Why was the court's decision respected? If Jefferson was in the habit of ignoring rulings, and congress was on his side, why didn't they just ignore it? Eventually someone had to force everyone to go along with it. Who did the forcing? How did they do it?


texts: River transportation before steam- did it always require beasts of burden?

texts:
Today, it takes gasoline or diesel fuel.  Prior to that and thanks to Mr. Fulton, there was steam.

I want to learn more about even earlier river transportation systems, focusing on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.  However, I would welcome information applicable to the Thames, the Yangtze, the Euphrates, or any major river, anywhere in time from antiquity to 1807.

As an example, consider the crew of a  keelboat or a flatboat going from New Orleans to St. Louis (or Shanghai to Wuhan or Um Qasr to Baghdad or ...)  How would they have done this?  Did they sail for any part of it?  Were they able row upstream?  Or would they need to find a mule named Sal (a good ol' worker, a good ol' gal) and tow along the bank the whole way?

The articles I have found don't tell me, with one at most saying "the process of moving a keelboat upriver was extremely difficult" with no amplifying details.


texts: Did France & Italy continue to develop and manufacture sophisticated military hardware once under German control?

texts:
Both France and Italy were designing and building advanced vehicle engines, motorcyles, aero engines and airframes through the 1930s and early 1940s.

In the case of those advanced economies of Europe (principally France and Italy, but also Czechoslovakia and the Netherlands) which fell under German control (direct or otherwise) between 1940 and 1945, what happened to their production of advanced military hardware like tanks, aero engines, airframes and the like?

Sure, plant and personnel were harnessed to the German war effort but what were they making? Were their own designs dumped, and the factories turned over to German designs to order? Or were they downgraded to producing more basic items like shells and pots and pans? Or were they permitted/encouraged to carry on independently producing their existing designs and even develop new prototypes? If the latter, were there German units in 1944/5 driving/riding/flying Renault trucks and Fiat aircraft?


texts: Were there originally seats in the elevators in the Eiffel Tower?

texts: There were seats drawn on the blue print for the tower. Today there are no seats. Were they fitted and then taken out or were they never installed at all?


texts: What is the basis of the Spanish claim to Gibraltar?

texts:
I looked at resources in English, particularly here. Whilst I expected some bias, it seemed strange that it was not able to identify anything in the Spanish argument that looked like a case to answer.

I next looked at Spanish Wikipedia. I thought that if there was even a weak case then a potentially biased website like this would be able to find it and express it in a pro-Spanish way. But even that said,

  Durante la Guerra de Sucesión Española (1701-1714), se firmó un tratado de paz entre Países Bajos, Reino de Gran Bretaña y España llamado tratado de Utrecht 1713. En este tratado se acordaba que a cambio de la paz internacional, España cedería el territorio que entonces ocupaba Gibraltar (más pequeño que el actual) y Menorca al Imperio Británico de acuerdo con el artículo X del tratado de Utrecht. Los posteriores acuerdos fueron confirmados en París y Sevilla. Años más tarde, los españoles trataron de recuperar la colonia sin éxito, ya fuera mediante uso militar o reclamando el territorio por vías pacíficas.

I translate this as

During the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) a peace treaty was agreed between the Low Countries, the Kingdom of Great Britain and Spain, called the Treaty of Utrecht 1713. In this treaty it was agreed that in exchange for international peace, Spain ceded the territory that then encompassed Gibraltar (smaller than at present) and Menorca to the British Empire in accordance with article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. Further accords were confirmed in Paris and Seville. Years later the Spanish tried to recover the colony without success, both by military means and by claiming the territory by peaceful means.

(If anyone can improve/complete my translation, please do)

Nothing here seems to suggest a valid Spanish claim.

In the previous paragraph it says that

  Gibraltar es un territorio no autónomo que, por mandato de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), debe ser objeto de un proceso de descolonización.

Gibraltar is a non-autonomous territory which, by mandate of the [] UN should be subject to a process of decolonization.

This seems to be based on Resolución 1514 (XV) of the UN which refers to

  la unidad nacional y la integridad territorial de un país

the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country

But this seems to be a circular argument as they would have to argue that Gibraltar was part of Spain before they argued that this resolution was in their favour. Clearly the UN cannot base its definition of a country on the boundaries at some particular point in history chosen by an interested party?

So, please, what is the basis for Spain's territorial claim?


texts: Why was an independant Saarland country created twice after each world war?

texts:
After World War I, some territories were removed from Germany, most of them had either a majority or a significant minority of non-german-speaking populations.

The exception that comes to mind to me is Saarland, to my knowledge, I do not think there was any significant minority or any population other than Germans in this region. Yet, France decided to create a small independent country that would be under France's influence there, before they would choose whether they would remain independent or rejoin Germany. France tried to influence the country as much as they could but they failed. A referendum to rejoin Germany was extremely successful by gaining 90% of the votes  (where the nazis were already in power, making this event their 1st annexation).

After the Second World War, another independent Saarland country was created (I think it had the same territory as the first, but I might be wrong), and, once again, it had eventually joined Western Germany after yet another successful referendum. (This is surprisingly similar to what already happened, but without the nazi thing, fortunately.)

As far I know, both short-lived Saarland independent countries had French as an official language, and they tried (but failed) to create a French influence on the country as much as possible. The French Franc currency was used for money.

My question is: Where does the idea of an independent country there comes from? Was there any French-speaking population there in the first place? If the French would just want to exploit the coal mines, why not just occupy the area but leave it politically to Germany?


texts: Were the lands of the Teutonic Knights part of the Holy Roman Empire?

texts:
This is a pretty simple question.
The lands owned and ruled by the Teutonic Knights within Germany were certainly part of the Holy Roman Empire.
Were the lands of the Teutonic Knights in the Baltic region, such as Prussia, Estonia, and Latvia, part of the Holy Roman Empire?
Some sources indicate that they were, and some that they weren't.  Some atlases of medieval history show that the border of the Holy Roman Empire included the Baltic lands of the Teutonic Knights and some that it didn't.
So does anyone have a definite answer?


texts: How did China deal with the Black Death during the second plague pandemic?

texts:
As far as I know, Europeans quarantined people. Sometimes neighbors sent food, and some people checked and marked houses infected by the Black Death. Sometimes corpses were burned in a mass pit, and sometimes the entire house or village was burned.

How did China manage the Black Death pandemic? I haven't found anything regarding this on Google.

Later I may add questions regarding other locations too.  However this SE has a weird point of view regarding what is considered to be a duplicate.  So just in case, a warning in the comments would be appreciated, if the same question with a different location would still be considered a duplicate or something.

Feel free to edit my grammar and to correct the tags to whatever is appropriate, since I don't know which tags are appropriate for this.


texts: Did the Greeks and Romans use reputational incentives to induce people to pay more tax?

texts:
I read the following tidbit in a monologue here. It sounds interesting and plausible but I couldn't verify it:

  Let me tell you a little bit about providing people with the
  opportunity to construct a more positive story. In ancient Rome and
  Greece, they did this. If you paid wealth tax, you got your name on a
  column, honoring your contribution. There was now some reputational
  upside.

  In fact, it worked so well that people came out of the woodwork and
  said, "You haven't asked me to pay this wealth tax, and I'm much
  wealthier than him. I should be on the column, too." This is an
  example of a status benefit, but there are other benefits that you can
  write into a narrative involving trade-off.

Does anybody know about this? Or know any primary sources?


texts: When did results of general elections start being available within twelve hours after an election?

texts:
I read in an unrelated but generally reliable book that in one national election in Germany in the early 1930s or late 1920s, the results were in by 3:00 a.m. the next morning.
When you think of it, vote counting is a task that is relatively simple and can easily be parallelized. Adding the individual results is not particularly hard either, even by pen & pencil. Though dividing into percentages and actually allocating parliament seats (if it is a parliamentary election with proportional representation) is a bit less trivial. And communication of local counting results may be a bottleneck.
Is there data on how long it historically took to determine results of general elections (with universal suffrage or universal male suffrage) on a nation-wide level in larger European countries? I.e. results of general presidential or parliamentary elections, in countries at least as large as Belgium or the Netherlands, e.g. not Andorra or Luxemburg. State-wise or national elections in the US would also be interesting.