I've always wondered why it took so long for North America to be "discovered" when its relatively close to Russia. This might be a stupid question but I've always wondered why North America doesn't have a a more Rssian presence.

Assuming that not every single man was outfitted with some sort of badge before battle.

From Article 1, Sec. 2: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative". That was changed in 1911 & went into effect in 193 by a law, not a Constitutional Amendment. "The number of representatives with full voting rights is 435, a number set by Public Law 62-5 on August 8, 1911, and in effect since 1913. The number of representatives per state is proportionate to population."

I thought that if something like this was specifically stated in the Constitution, then only an Amendment could change it. Or does this mean that this law could be challenged before the Supreme Court? With today's strict originalists on the bench, would they vote to change it back to the original?

Hello, I was reading up on lists of divisions in the German Wehrmacht and saw that divisions, especially Panzer Divisions tended to skip several leaps of numbers.

For example (in order)

26th Panzer Division

27th Panzer Division

and then it jumps to the 116th Panzer division, then to the 155th eventually reaching all the way up to the 273rd in a matter of 7 divisions.

​

Surely there weren't 273 Panzer divisions in the Wehrmacht, so why these great leaps in numeration?

Was it to make it seem like there were more than there actually were?

Was it because previous divisions became reformed into Panzer divisions? (If so, why did they keep names such as the 116th rather than change it to something that would support an orderly sequence?)

I’m doing a comprehensive paper on the on the development of the atom bomb for my history professor, and I was wondering how the U.S. scientists censored themselves in their research papers when they were trying to keep their advances on its construction out of the hands of the Germans. Also, prior to 1933, Germany had the most Nobel laureate scientists, but after WWII when the Jews came to the U.S. we have the most Nobel laureate scientists. Did that change Germany’s economy or education system? If so, how, and is it still affecting things there today?

I mean generally: size, "importance" (socially, economically, etc), how well-known or important to the people of the country?

I think we are all well aware of General Washington's political savvy: drawing France into the war, helping to draw up the Constitution and reject the Articles of Confederation; and his most farsighted act of resigning as president after his second term to avoid political legacy/Washington domination. In schools, however, it is accepted that Washington was a great general -- from the time of his serving as an officer in colonial wars to his role of General and Chief of the Continental Armies. Was Washington, however, a good General? I know this may be too broad a question to effectively answer so was he a good general in terms of his: tactical, strategic, and field command? Or any other traits you find to be useful in assessing the effectiveness of a general?

Everyone knows about WWI and WWII, both within the past 120 years but have they really been the only world wars?

What is a good book to learn about to ups and downs of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency? I’m a history major very interested in 20th century America, particularly WW2 and the Gilded Age. I understand that Roosevelt was a very polarizing figure based on ideals of the time, but I’m wanting to find an unbiased view of him.

I’ve heard a lot about the CIA being involved with the crack epidemic and a lot of people being certain about this. There’s a lot of media like movies, TVshows, etc that reference this but is there actual merit to those claims?

Okay, so a few searches haven't turned up the answers I'm looking for. In the July 1932 German elections, the Nazi Party took a plurality of the seats in the Reichstag, the lower house of the German legislature. They would hold onto that plurality until they seized power the following year.

But what of Weimar Germany's upper house, the Reichsrat? They weren't popularly elected, but rather appointed by the individual German states. Did members of this body have political parties, or was it supposed to be a nonpartisan body? Hitler completely dissolved the Reichsrat soon after seizing power, so I would assume that Nazi sentiments were not popular there, but that assumption is all I have.

Hi,

I hope my question isn't against any rules, for starters. I know that this is less of a direct question about a certain topic and more a general query on how to get started about learning about the ACW.

I'm a native Brit with absolutely zero connections to the United States, but I recently watched the film 'Cold Mountain' and had my interest piqued. That led to me getting down a bit of a YouTube rabbit hole, eventually ending up on the channel of a YouTuber who mostly makes ACW videos.

That being said, the topic has me fascinated, and whilst I would love to know more, I am worried about finding the 'wrong' source, especially as I'm not American, so some of the more well-known localisms and/or references may go over my head, at least initially.

I also know the ACW can remain a potentially inflammatory topic to this day, so I am absolutely not trying to stir things up. I would just like to know of a good place to start! I'm also painfully aware of how broad this question is, aka. similar to someone asking 'Best place to start learning about WW2,' for instance. The ACW is a giant topic and hugely influential, so apologies if the question is too broad in scope.

Thanks to anybody who replies.

I often see a "daimyo" compared (and called the equivalent) to a "lord" in Europe. However, they seem more like dukes or governors than anything. I'm wondering if, when referred to, would they be given the same title as "Lord of [land]" as in "He is the Daimyo of [land]" or is it just, "they are a daimyo" and that's it?

I find it so amazing that a man alive when the most terrifying weapons on a battlefield was a calvary charge or artillery barrage was still alive when Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bombed. and I'm very curious to if they have ever been recorded commenting on such events that may have seemed so insane in comparison to the type of war they knew.

Was he ever "mainstream"? Did his popularity wax or wane during his lifetime? Have his works ever been cited in Government economic policy?

I'm thinking mainly of, for example, Nuwa and Fuxi being Bodhisattvas, Laozi and Confucius being Bodhisattvas, the great antiquity of Buddhism in China(time of the sage kings, relics of Ashoka etc), Laozi being a disciple of the Buddha, Laozi being Buddha, Yin Xi being Buddha, Laozi imposing monastic celibacy with a view to genocide etc. Were these ideas and beliefs largely restricted to religious polemic, rhetoric deployed only in specific circumstances and for specific purposes, or do we see them held and used more widely? Are they known or believed by those without a dog in the fight - those not strongly aligned with either Buddhism or Daoism? Thanks

I know total war has had a couple of takes on this formation, and there is 300’s phalanx, but surely there are more takes out there on the Greek or Macedonian phalanx. What do you think is the best take on the phalanx? If not best, than most original?

For original I have to say the souls franchise version of the phalanx. But, what are your thoughts?

I heard that Marx didn't like Simón Bolívar, so it doesn't seem to me like it was Marx that was opposed to colonialism per se. But there are so many socialist/communist groups/parties around the world that seem so critical of colonialism. I see the connection for sure, but were there any figures in particular that made the connection publicly?