Oddly specific, but it's something I desperately need to figure out for a piece of fiction I'm writing. Appears to be shockingly complex after a bit of research, so I figured I'd turn it over to you guys for input.

I know Laramie began to develop rapidly while it was the western terminal for the transcontinental Union Pacific line, but re-writing history so that it stays that way doesn't seem like it'd be enough to make the town as prosperous as I was hoping, and furthermore doesn't seem reasonable for the development of the rail line.

Any thoughts on how this could have happened based on the conditions around that time and place? I'm open to fabrication (found oil, gold, etc ), but it's easy to just make something up whole cloth. I'm hoping somebody on here might have some useful knowledge about the old west that I can use to create an informed alternative.

Thanks!

I heard that there was no conception or idea of childhood before the 1500s, both in West and in East. Is it correct? If so, who would you recommend to read about the subject? I guess Philippe Aries wrote about it. I plan to read him.

At my high school, government is a required class for graduation and I'm taking it this semester. (The government teacher is also in charge of teaching US History, World History, and Civics) This year our school got a new government teacher and for the purposes of this post, I will say that she has been less than satisfactory at her job so far. We are currently doing a unit about diplomacy and we have been assigned historical empires to act as diplomats for. Recently I noticed that a lot of the information that she's been giving my class is incorrect. I am presenting this information to her higher up and want to make sure my argument is factually correct and well thought out so I wanted to ask for this subreddit's help.

I will list everything that she misinformed us about in chronological order:

1. We were told to make a presentation about the empire that our groups were assigned and she gave us fact sheets with information about our empires on them. My group had the British Empire. Our fact sheet said that the British Empire was Catholic, and to be fair, they were Catholic for a period of time, but the informational sheet made no mention of Protestantism.
   1. I figured that this must have just been a simple mistake on her part and gave her the benefit of the doubt in that instance.
2. The next class we (the entire class this time and not only my group) analyzed the letter of Queen Elizabeth's ex-communication from the Catholic church. My teacher told the class that Queen Elizabeth was Catholic and proceeded to misinterpret the letter.
3. That same class, she made a power hierarchy of the British Empire at that time on the whiteboard of the classroom. Her hierarchy (from top to bottom) was God, The Apostles, The Pope, The King/Queen, nobles, and then peasants. Here are the issues that I have with this:
   1. The mixture of religious figures and actual people. God and The Apostles shouldn't belong on a political power hierarchy, especially in a public school like mine. I understand that religion was a large piece of the British Empire but having God on that list insinuates that God is a historical figure that definitively exists. While I respect other people's belief in God, teaching God's existence at a public school is not a separation of State and Church (I live in the USA).
   2. The actual power hierarchy was different and more complicated than the one she presented us with, especially at the time of the Pope's ex-communication of Queen Elizabeth

Is there anything that I missed or got incorrect?

TL;dr : Teacher tells students that the British Empire was Catholic and that Queen Elizabeth was also Catholic. Spends entire class misinterpreting the Pope's letter of ex-communication of Queen Elizabeth. Insinuates the definitive existence of God and The Apostles and includes them on a list of political power.

Namely, besides the purely philosophical and religious reasons of these rising by developing already existing concerns in the Upanishads and the Vedic period, what were the more material causes for it? What changed in society that allowed these heterodox religious movements to arise and gain prominence?

As the title states. What is the difference between the Black Brigades and the GNR in the Italian Social Republic (RSI)? To me, they both seem like police or security forces so I’m not sure what exactly is different in there roles.

Thanks for the help!

I lived in Canada for the first half of my life and when i moved to America it was a bit of a culture shock but, that was just bugging me, when did American schools start doing the whole stand for the pledge thing?

So pretty much the title. I've read that instances of individual archery duels between samurai were common during the time but how would that work in the heat of battle? Assuming I was victorious in this duel how would I go about collecting my foes head as proof of my glory? Would I have my retainers rush over immediately to collect or would I wait to the end of battle, and if I do wait how do I ensure no one tries to claim my trophy as their own?

was it all just corruption and plunder?

Just wanted to engage with something that always puzzles me about the era. The Imperial army was meritocratic and quick to honor capable commanders at the division level and lower — why couldn’t the Marshals of the Empire handle independent command? Why couldn’t Napoleon find anyone besides Davout who could deal with not being under the Emperor’s wing? Further, why didn’t he use Davout when he needed him most, instead keeping him holed up in Hamburg and in Paris for Leipzig and Waterloo?

Why did more men like Moreau not emerge?

(crosspost from reddit.com/r/ageofnapoleon)

I was reading The Count of Monte Cristo and The Three Musketeers and I obviously ran into a lot of silly language about women. There are constant references to "The natural weakness of women" and how they were prone to illogical bursts of emotion, etc.

This kind of thing was most prevalent in TTM. However, upon a second reading, it's clear that all of this is only surface level. The women in that book are the primary drivers of the plot. Every event of importance happens thanks to/on behalf of the female actors. It's also made very clear that the women are, on average, far more intelligent than the men. In contrast, the men are constantly described as intelligent and clever, yet often make choices of baffling idiocy. The main villain of the story is supposed to be The Cardinal, but the character of Milady is by far the most cunning and capable person in the whole book, and ends up being the greatest threat to the well being of the protagonists.

Moving on TCoMC, there seems to be a reversal. The women are intelligent and educated, but to no purpose. They play only minor parts in the events of the story. For the most part, they have very little self-agency, yet it is clear that they desire more freedom than they have to act as they wish, similar to Madame Bovary. Strangely, there is much less mysoginistic language in the story. At least, compared to TTM. The women are honored, and praised far more than they are demeaned. I was also surprised to find a lesbian couple among the minor characters.

My question is, at the time they were written, were these books praised or criticized for their handling of female characters? Or did the subject not come up at all? Did they reflect or challenge the views of their time?

Wouldn’t it have been more logical to wait until after the war? Or start before the war? I feel like the Nazis really hamstringed themselves by taking so many loyal germans/workers and killing them, not to mention the resources that were used.

According to Bede, the Angles and Jutes which invaded Britain during the 5th Century came from an area roughly analogous to modern day Jutland and Schleswig. In the 8th Century, this same area is populated by the Viking Dane culture. If Bede is to be believed, it follows that there should be evidence of a Jutish or Anglo-Jutish culture remaining in the region and ultimately giving way, in some fashion, to the culture of the Danes.

Obviously it's best to take Bede with a pinch of salt, so my question ultimately is whether any such evidence exists in the historical or archaeological record and, if so, what light does it shine on the emergence of the Viking culture as the dominant culture of the Jutland Peninsula?

From the 16th century until 1983, a canon lawyer would argue against canonization. Did these individuals face harassment or discrimination for their duties?