We are going over the American Civil War in my history class and it seems like in almost every battle we’ve gone over the Confederates have been outnumbered by some significant margin.

Wouldn’t the Confederates actually have more men since they could leave their jobs and farms for awhile and rely on slaves to do the work?

I get that the Confederates probably couldn’t draft/recruit African Americans since a lot of them would probably try to desert or get to the Union’s armies. Plus they relied on African Americans for their economy to keep functioning.

According to my history teacher the Union had a much larger manpower pool that allowed Ulysses S. Grant to occasionally make it a war of attrition. Additionally my teacher said the only reason the south wasn’t beaten sooner was because Robert E. Lee was such a good general.

Sorry if this gets asked frequently.

TL;DR Why was the South so outnumbered by the North? Was it really due to the fact that the North could recruit African Americans or was there another big factor in it? Also, why did my history teacher make it sound like the South only survived as long as it did because of Robert E. Lee? Was the Union significantly more powerful than the Confederacy?

As the title says, I’m just curious to what opportunities I would have if I choose this path in my studies. Would going for a masters be useful? If any of you majored in history, what do you do for a living?

I know that early depictions of the future (Around the classical and medieval periods) tended to portray the future as almost identical to the classical or medieval period in terms of technological advancement.

Same thing was true of depictions of the past, with many Roman stories set during the Bronze Age making mention of steel weapons, and medieval churches depicting biblical scenes with (at the time) “modern” clothing and armor.

I understand that a lot of this was due to the fact that developments in the technological field tended to happen gradually, with major life-altering breakthroughs happening once per lifetime if even that.

My question is, when did people start believing that the future would be more advanced than the present?

How long was it until the public at large started to notice the vast progress that had been made over the years?

Hi y'all, I'm looking for an internet site or a collection of images about newspapers during the WW2, looked a little bit on Google and haven't found nothing interesing

Thanks for you help :)

How effective were WW1 U-Boats? I am aware of WW2 U-Boats, which had better batteries and engines which gave them the capability of staying under the water longer (and thus avoiding detection). But radio, experience and better tactics were able to defeat them in the end (or cripple the offensive capabilities of Germany enough that they were losing modern U-boats in the same rate as they were able to sink enemy traders, or so is the story that I remember). But how did WW1 U-boats performed? Were they novelty weapons as Tanks were? Or were they already developed and matured technology to be efficient?

I was wondering if early Egyptians would've been able to understand spoken or written language of the later dynasties.

Also if I may, what would be the "longest lasting" language that has stayed relatively understandable to it's speakers?

Is this true, even though it’s commonly represented in films?

If an traveler or merchant was going or coming back to an besieged or under war city, what the enemies of that city could have done to them? Or somehow they knew that situation and avoid going to the war or siege zone? If so, how they could knew that situation?

I know that Francois Spain was for the most part a fascist state, but where else did fascists maneged to gain serious ground

Outside of archaeological digs and the like - if someone was on private property and dug into a Native American burial site, were there laws that stipulated what happened to the bones and artifacts? Or would they be treated as private property? It's a bit morbid to think of people doing that, but I've read about folks that did, and I'm curious if they were acting in accordance with the law or against it.

Howdy folks,I'm a pretty big baseball fan (Go Jays Go!) and amateur historian and after watching Hyun-Jin Ryu pitching the other day in a pre-season game I found myself curious how a traditionally North American game has become some popular in the Eastern Asian countries. At first, I'd figured it would've been American post Second World War & Cold War influence that made it so popular, however, after a quick cursory search both nations have had professional and semi-professional leauges/teams far pre-dating 1945. Thank you in advance for any answers to this question!

Edit 1: To avoid the "20 Year" rule, I suppose the question should be: What are the orgins of baseball in Eastern Asia? I am not necessarily looking for an explination of popularity of the sport, but rather how the sport began and grew in these countries.

I know that slaves practiced Christianity (because it was forced.) And it became institutional to Slaves as time goes on. I know that racism was one of the fundamentals on keeping slavery an institution and slave owners would have separate slave cemeteries to keep away from white cemeteries, so I'm just wondering, did slave owners believe they and the slaves that died would go to the same heaven or did slave owners believe slaves had a separate heaven?

I have never been able to fully wrap my head around this aspect of the decline of the Roman Empire. The Republican era saw the Romans, with a much smaller population, suffer catastrophic defeat after catastrophic defeat (Lake Trasimene, Cannae, Arausio). Each time they replaced the losses and they won out it in the end. In fact, abundant manpower from allies is often cited as a driver in Roman's ascent to Mediterranean hegemony.

Yet the army seems to have become very brittle in the later years. A defeat like Adrianople, which was small in comparison to Cannae et.al. is credited with crippling the Roman Army for decades afterwards.

So what gives? If the answer is a change from a citizen levy to a professional army, then it seems that Rome made a mistake in moving from a successful system that could mobilize endless numbers to one that required years and years and years to get back up to strength after a defeat. Was the later army that much more elite and effective than the Roman Republican legions that won Zama, et al? And, as far as I can see, there wasn't really a truly catastrophic and irreversible decline in tax revenue until the Vandals invaded North Africa, which would seem to work against any hypothesis based in a lack of funds.