As a long time bicyclist in America, I am used to being considered (at best) an after-thought on the road and (at worse) an obstacle to be eliminated. But automobiles are the late comers to traffic and it is an article of faith among bicyclists that at one point, car drivers were much more legally liable when they hit someone with their car. Now it seems reversed: 'what was that bicycle doing on the road?'

How did personal automobiles become the dominant form of transit? Is the story about changing legal liability true?

I've often read (anecdotally here) that conquerors and colonizers set about setting up a new order in places where they arrived - often, presumably, strictly through force of course, but beyond that, how did they make themselves understood?

How did Cortes communicate with the Aztecs? Cabral with the indigenous people of Brasil? Columbus with the Taino? Alexander with the many peoples on his path?

And what about non (or less) violent folks, like maybe Marco Polo, or other explorers and missionaries?

Are there famous historical interpreters? How did they come to be, and what role did they play in these incursions, if any?

I’m looking for a book that can serve as a good introduction to Chinese history. Something that lays out different ages and dynasties well, then leads up to the PRC. If there are two separate books that deal with ancient and modern China better on their own that’s okay too.

I was thinking about writing a novel about somebody travelling back to Burgundy in the 530s (because there's Justinian, the end of the Ostrogoths, the uniting of Francia for a second time, etc.), but I don't know much about what life was like for both monarchs and peasants. I tried to search it up, but I couldn't really find anything, but I apologize if this question has already been answered and I'm just being thick.

Anyway, I wanted to know a lot of things about the period, mainly were there nobility and what was their class system, because as far as I can tell, feudalism only really started to develop in the 8th Century, so did just anyone own land, or did the King or nobles control it, and how did the lower classes live (I imagine it was similar to later eras, because peasants have basically lived like sh*t throughout history, especially the Dark Ages). Also, I'd like to know what it was like for the Kings - were they living in the luxury of monarchs in later centuries, or were they still barbarians that were more tribe than Kingdom? Also, what was it like for the peasantry and Finally, I'd like to know about law and order at the time; I know there was the hue and cry, wergild, etc, in England later on but I don't know much about the rest of Europe and especially in this period.

Thank you to anyone who replies and any details about any civilization during this time is much appreciated, diet, medicine, trade, agriculture, etc. Much appreciated, goodbye.

While looking at Alexander's campaign, I noticed that on his way to taking Persepolis, he was ambushed by a small Persian force lead by a satrap known as Ariobarzanes causing him to withdraw his forces and leave the slaughtered Macedonian troops behind. While he was eventually defeated after Alexander was told how to flank his army a month later, Ariobarzanes and his army forced the Macedonians to flee for the first time. Therefore, how is Alexander said to have never lost a battle? Is this because the fight was considered an ambush rather than a formal battle?

Also, I read about the tank being plagued with logistics problems especially near the end of the war, but the article I was reading from didn't go really in-depth into these issues aside from just mentioning it. Any insight would be welcome.

As a Finn, my knowledge about early Finnish history is quite restricted. I know there was a religion involving similar gods to Norse mythology but with different weighings of the characters. The religion was in use with the Eastern Finns from Karelia, from whose stories Kalevala was composed, and included worship/respect of certain animals like bears. I also know the beliefs and traditions changed regionally.

But how I've understood it, all the knowledge from the general area of modern Finland we have now is through archaeological evidence, that there are no written records. Finns weren't vikings to my knowledge, but I've read that more or less recently viking swords have been found in the coastal areas. Did ancient forest Finns kill vikings, or were they purged? If there were any written records from the times before, did the christian Swedes destroy all of that "pagan" knowledge from the lesser Finns when they arrived? How much of a difference was there between for example a forest Finn from Northern Ostrobothnia area and from Karelia area?

These are broad questions, I will appreciate all answers focusing on any aspects about them.

In the TV show Rome he is depicted as kinky/deviant, cold, distant, vengeful, nerdy, socially conservative and concerned with Roman "family values." Is there any truth to this depiction or did he let his hair down and have a good time at parties?

How did breakfast lunch and dinner work? I'm guessing it had to be extremely rationed and would vary between the different social/military classes and between the different sea faring nations. I'm also sure the richer and higher staff ate better. Did people back then think of ship's food like we do today of airplane food, which usually tastes different and not as good as daily food?

Hi y'all,

I am undoubtedly sure this question has been asked and answered multiple times, but I am not sure how to search it while stuck at home. I know the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is concise and has led to a lot of interpretations. I was hoping someone might be able to shed some light on the original intentions. My knowledge of the founding and the Revolutionary War was that the founders feared a strong central government which would be able to rule over the states leading to tyranny essentially. Allowing for a well regulated Militia I, from my knowledge, assume this was about the minutemen and realising, the power this had to stop an invading force. You would essentially be able to muster up troops quickly if you the citizens of the country were armed. This would also allow for each state to be able to defend themselves without the need of an Army. I assume this is also why the U.S. Army isn't allowed to operate on U.S. soil. Based on the time it feels like a radical and new solution to defence and a way to prevent too much power being given to the federal government. My knowledge of Constitutional law is limited, and my history of the United States is what I learned in school and any documentary I have seen. I am piecing together my knowledge and coming up with a conclusion, that needs more research. I spent some time attempting to look into the origin of the amendment. Still, given the 2nd amendment's political nature, I have had difficulty in finding websites that are without bias and offer a deeper dive. I am trying to learn more about the context within why this amendment was put into place, and not what the courts decided later. I feel like our modern interpretation of the amendment has likely been warped and changed given to fact is is incredibly vague and leaves a lot to interpretation.

I'm a pre-Christianity Celt living in Ireland. I practice the Druidic Arts, and make my living by doing so. What rituals, magical or otherwise, would the local population call upon me to perform?

A clearer question: Did the actual people in the party change their views to the opposite or did the title of "Democrat" and "Republican" just quite literally swap?

So for example Republicans pretty much ruled the North while Democrats, the south. Just as Democrats fought to keep slavery while Republicans sought to abolish it.

Did the people stay the same, with the same politics/beliefs and just swapped the name of their party;

or did they keep their name but totally swap beliefs?

Or maybe it isn't quite the simple? I'd love for an explanation on this!

Really hoping this doesn’t get political, just looking for some facts. Thanks for the help.

The TV show The Tudors shows sentries positioned on the coast that see an incoming fleet and light signal fires to let other know what they've seen.

First off, did a sentry network like this exist? Was it always in operation, or only during times of perceived threat?

If the sentries did exist, what was it like to be one? Did you have a cabin? Or simpler accommodations? Were you at your post for long periods of time? Was it your only profession? Or did you do it "on the side"?

And finally, were these sentries maintained by the English crown (national)? Or were they maintained by individual landholders?

When King Henry VIII wanted to divorce (technically, to annul the marriage so that it never existed in the first place) Catherine and marry Anne Bolyn, how likely was this to be allowed by the Vatican based on precedent? I realize that Catherine was married to Henry's brother first, then widowed, and it was never consumated (so it was claimed), and so this touches on a traditional definition of incest + marriage #1 never happening. Still, what other creative and supple exercises of legal reasoning and theology had other kings gotten in his era that made him even consider asking such a favor?

I ask in part because today 6/22/2020 is the Feast of St. Thomas More for Catholic Redditors!

Iceland has always been big into fishing,it is the main source of "home grown" food. Why was this not the case with Ireland,especially since they were in a famine with a relatively steady supply of fish?

It seems odd to be that starting with Lindisfarme and then for the next few hundred years, Anglo-Saxons seem to have been nearly non-stop the victims of Viking Raids and Norse invasions. Why wasn't more of an effort made to make monasteries more defensible, or keep armed forces close by to intercept the raiders?