Apparently not only had many European militaries already adopted breech loaders, but the United States received an astounding number of submissions for both breech loading and lever action rifles. I understand that logistics restrict a lot of what armies can do, but this was an intense fight for the survival of two nations conducted mostly over land. Why not give your army an overwhelming edge in firepower? Was it really just because they couldn't afford the ammunition?

Ask the title says I am curious on why royal family would fight against eachother? Didn't they know that such infighting would lead to their downfall? Or insteading fighting one another the help eachother with their goals? They may not be king but they would still be royalty and have a good life. And also are they're any examples of royal families being strongly united together. Kind of like the Starks in a Song of Ice and Fire.

I've been told that most of the founding fathers were deist, I've been told only a few were. Then there's all the people that insist that America was founded on "Christian Values". Maybe another more broad question would be, "What are values that could be considered the values that America was founded on" Sorry if this is a touchy subject, but this seemed like a good medium and place to have a civil discussion on the topic

A question I had in mind for a while. When the great french revolution broke out, it divided France into various groups of revolts and loyalists, as in Brittany for example. However, were any other revolutions, outside France, present during the revolution, perhaps the revolutionary wars? Enlightenment philosophy was present in the rest of Europe as well, so it might have been possible. There probably weren't any big ones, as in 1848, because they aren't known, but anyhow, were there?

And how did they live? Were they rich and business owners or were they poor and discriminated?

I've been reading up on the Aztecs and Incas recently and came across this quote:

"The Incas lacked the use of wheeled vehicles. They lacked animals to ride and draft animals that could pull wagons and plows... [They] lacked the knowledge of iron and steel... Above all, they lacked a system of writing... Despite these supposed handicaps, the Incas were still able to construct one of the greatest imperial states in human history." — Gordon McEwan, The Incas: New Perspectives

Compared to this, from what I've seen it seems that the Aztecs had a written language, as well as knowledge of and limited implementation of the wheel.

So why was the Incas so 'behind' on this technology, whereas the Aztecs, existing at a similar time, were seemingly not?

I’m currently reading Ancient Persia by Matt Waters. He was discussing how the Persians put down the revolts in Ionia in the 490’s when he said;

“After the victory, Miletus was besieged and ultimately sacked; its inhabitants were sold into slavery or deported [...]”

However, I have learned elsewhere that slavery was forbidden Zoroastrianism, and was outlawed by Cyrus the great. Was slavery reorganised between the founding of the empire and the Ionian rebellions? Was this this an inaccuracy by Herodotus/the author?

In Said's Culture and Imperialism he says "One also recalls that only in the nineteenth century did European historians of the Crusades begin not to allude to the practice of cannibalism among Frankish knights, even though eating human flesh is mentioned unashamedly in contemporary Crusader chronicles".

What chronicles is he referring to? Is it accepted among historians that cannibalism was practiced, frequently or otherwise, during the Crusades?

Hi, guys. I've recently watched a few Westerns (e.g. the original 3:10 to Yuma) in which a key dilemma stems from the inability of small towns to securely imprison suspected criminals or gang members without reprisal from said criminals' gangs. It seems conceivable that smaller towns with limited firepower / law enforcement might have struggled to prevent coordinated jailbreak attempts without the risk of major collateral damage (especially prior to the spread of railroad transport), so I'm curious if there were any commonly accepted methods of risk reduction among lawmen in these communities. If anyone knows of specific examples in which these communities' efforts were successful or unsuccessful, that would be very helpful as well.

Hi. I'm reading Frankenstein at the moment. The characters travel a lot, still they are always exchanging letters. Sometimes one character receives a letter at a different location than the one he sent a precious one.

​

My question is:

Were I in that period, how would I know to which address to send a letter to a traveling friend? Was there a system for doing that even when my friend's exact location was more or less uncertain?

Did widespread animosity and antipathy exist between Spaniards and Italians during the Middle Ages? If so, what was the reasoning? There are also moments throughout the show "The Borgias" where the French are depicted as warlike and macho, which is quite counter to more recent depictions of the French in popular English-language media. Were these regional/national prejudices very pronounced during the Middle Ages of Europe?

I'm wondering if any soldiers on either side of the war had any knowledge about the camps. And if they knew, did they know what was going on inside the camps? If they did, how could that not have created an uproar, especially in the German side of the war.

The title is pretty straightforward, I’ll give some examples I had in mind.

1. When the Seljuk Turks fought against the Byzantines and took they’re territory, the land they annexed was nominally Greek or Armenian so how the Turks assimilate the natives and not the other way around?

2.When the Manchus invaded China they integrated (although not entirely, the Manchus still had they’re own identity) themselves into the Chinese culture by adopting traditions such as The Mandate of Heaven, Confucianism, the Chinese language and so on. How come the Chinese assimilated the Qing and not the other way around?

Those are just some points that I had in mind. So how did it work?

(This has mod approval) I'm writing a paper on ww1 specifically my thesis is blaming the British for many of the negative effects seen within the middle east (economic issues, loss of life, violent conflicts, food shortages) in the end of the war due to an abandonment of their responsibility and making agreements to fulfill thier own self interest that they refused to keep.

I need to look at two different perspectives for my historiography saying who is to blame options being:

1. blame is on the British or rather Europeans as a whole

2. blame is on ottoman nationalism or radical Islam

I need help finding primary and secondary sources for both sides as I've had very little luck by myself, I have some but hardly enough to write a whole paper on.

I also need help finding sources about the state of the middle east at the end of the war and directly at the end of the war in regions under britsh mandates or where the British had heavy influence.

Sorry for any spelling or Grammer issues I'm kinda in a rush writing this.