How did they come into existence? Why were they formed? Is there any connection or correlation between the formation of police forces and the transformation to capitalism (or any economic connection generally)? What are some books or papers to read on these topics?

Thanks in advance!

Edit: questions

I’ve been getting the rust off the bolts on my American history and have been delving into the development of the American frontier and the “Wild West” and have been curious about some of the details regarding stagecoach travel in that time period.

Obviously this time period and setting have been extremely fictionalized and as I understand it towns we’re relatively safe contrary to their depiction but I’ve had trouble finding out more detail on traveling from town to town on the trails and am looking for more detail on the following:

1. Realistically, how common was stagecoach robbery? Did it happen to just anyone or was it focused mainly on merchants?

2. How reliable were stagecoaches? What would happen if one were to breakdown?

3. Did people make these journeys alone or was there typically a group of people?

4. I’m sure this varies but typically how far could one get in a day traveling by stagecoach? Typically how long would it take to travel X distance?

I know this is a peculiar question but just something I’d like a little more info on.

Thank you in advance.

In the March Revolution(Märzrevolution) there were a Big Demand for a United German Nation either with Austria or without. At the End it was the small German solution.

But if there were a Greater German solution it would have consisted of all "German" States so there were demands in Bohemia Austria Germany and Luxembourg (were the some in Swiss and Lichtenstein too)

So why were there big Demands for a United Germany in Bohima and Austria but non in the Netherlands their language is more similar to Standard German than Austrian or Bavarian accent and Czech is a completly different language. (Source I am Austrian) They even were in the Holy Roman Empire until the 80 years war and had almost the same "Power" as Bavaria or Saxony.

So why wasn't there big demands for a foundation of a greater German state?

Hi Guys,

I'm looking for some good sources for German accounts of the war in English. Particularly towards the end of the war, ideally interviews. I'm having trouble finding books from the German point of view.

​

Cheers!

It seems like the vote in the House was generally pro-abolition even in southern states (two of the five nay votes came from Vermont and New Hampshire), though there were more southern nay votes in the senate

Did the southern states believe that their slaveholding economy wouldn't be affected with no more importation of slaves? Did they plan on just ignoring it?

EDIT: It was the international slave trade, not the domestic, that was banned. Just realized I didn't make that distinction

When talks of revolution started growing in the colonies did American churches support the idea of a revolution, or did they urge colonists to submit to the powers that be?

If an army was to rout, would the soldiers take their armour off to help them flee more easily/not be identified by the winning army?

What kind of clothes would an archer (who as far as I'm aware made up the majority of the armies back then) wear under their livery coats etc?

I just want to know if there are any historical evidence that suggests raiders coming from Iceland. As much as I know( and I might be badly informed) The nordic people that settled there found no humans and considered it perfect for a peaceful settlement and named it "Iceland" so that actual raiders would not have any intention. But did they raid? Perhaps the northern part Scotland? Or they remained peaceful? Seems kind of hard to me to just stop a tradition imposed "By the Gods" but on the other hand maybe they didn't have enough man or the habitatans were simply not warriors

Hello,

My questions today have multiple facets. In popular media the barbarian Vikings are depicted as an antithesis to the civilized Anglo-Saxons of Britain. And if I am not mistaken the Holy Roman Empire and the English kingdoms did indeed see themselves as the civilized Christians defending against the heathens.

But it occurred to me that the Anglo-Saxons themselves were Northern Germanic peoples from North Germany/Denmark that displaced the native British population. Like the Viking Age Norsemen! (apart from Norway/Sweden of course).

So I have the following questions:

1. How different was the average Anglo-Saxon individual from the Viking Age Norseman?
2. Did their societies significantly differ? In culture, governance as well as warfare?
3. Bonus questions:
   1. were the Anglo-Saxons ever r/SelfAwarewolves that thought 'Gee, raiding, invading and displacing the native population is really a dickmove by these Northern Germanic peoples in their boats.. hey wait where are the Britons?' Did they ever see the irony of the situation?
   2. Do we know if surviving Britons ever thought the Anglo-Saxons getting raided was 'karma'?

I am writing my history research paper about how slavery and the slave trade enhanced Britain's (Caribbean) economy around the 18th century. I want to compare and contrast such as how the economy was before slavery and after or something of that sort. I'm, however, struggling to find sources (primary or secondary sources) that specifically and explicitly talk about the slave trade's influence on the economy. I would much appreciate the help if someone can help or knows where I can find these sources.

And was it adopted by the U.S. military?

This is inspired by the excellent answer to a previous post regarding largely 18th and 19th horsemanship.

Hello!

I will state my questions and then context for those who care to know because I realize these may be some odd questions. Also, sources are highly appreciated if applicable because then I can read more about the topic.

1. Has there ever been an instance of mass biological warfare used?

2. Has any country ever produced biological weapons?

3. Were there any things in place that prevent countries from creating bio weapons of mass destruction in secret?

4. Is the production of biological weapons officially banned? (I ask bc I read a bit about the convention by the UN in '72 but then I found an article stating that 16 countries plus Taiwan are developing bio-weaponry including the US and Canada)

Context: I'm creating a DnD homebrew one shot that is a zombie apocalypse set in 1974.

The premise I'm trying to string together is that a biological 'nuke' was secretly being developed by the US before the 1972 UN convention. Once they signed the treaty the US still continued developing this despite signing the treaty because "technically" it hadn't gone into effect yet.

Thanks in advance!

I've read that medieval France was a very decentralized state where regional landowners held power, while the king wasn't that powerful. How was France able to transform into a unified, centralized state where the king held absolute power?

From what I understand, Finland was quite peripheral to early medieval politics and would not be settled by Scandinavian people until some centuries after. It surprised me that an English writer would be familiar with Finland, even if describing a story set in Denmark.

Were there trade networks between England and Finland at the time Beowulf is set (6-7th century) or the time in which it was written (10-11th century)? What contact existed between these two end-nodes of the Scandinavian cultural sphere?

the confederados still have southern sentiment and made their own communities in brazil. despite slavery was still legal in brazil till 1886, did they attempt to prolong it, did they influence their republican form if governent, did jim crow exist there? what did confeds think of race and economic class as well as blanquemiento?

When confronted with the numerous human rights violations promoted by the old testament (genocide, slavery, death penalty for gays, captive virgin women to be used as sex slaves, virgins to be married to their rapists, kill everyone who worships other gods, etc), a lot of modern Christians say "oh, that's the old testament, the old covenant, we don't follow that, we follow the gospels" or something like that. There are even Christians that say the god from the OT was a different god from the NT, that the god from the OT was a god of punishment and the god of NT as a god of love. There are a number of different reasonings they give to cope with the terrible parts of the OT.

Of course one would argue that the only reason that Christians today kind of dismiss parts of the OT is because we as a global community developed new moral/ethical values after the Enlightenment that pretty much led to the creation of the concept of human rights for every individual, and without the values of the Enlightenment the Christian world would not have a problem with the "bad parts" of the OT, given the fact that Christians unapologetically commited a number of human rights violations very similar to the ones in the OT.

My question is, how was the Old Testament historically viewed by the Christians, from the early Christians in the 1st century to, let's say, the 19-20th Christians? Did influential Christians writers from the past centuries said anything about the OT being not to be followed, like modern Christians do?