My father, who was a WWII combat veteran, once told me that 1 in five soldiers in combat never fired their weapon. I was amazed at the statement, but he insisted it was true.

Since a civil war is defined as “a war between political factions or regions within the same country”, and the CSA regarded themselves as an independent nation, would calling the conflict a ‘Civil War’ be incorrect?

You often hear the notion that everything from vigorous monogamy to homophobia is rooted in an integral Judeo-Christian negative attitude towards sexuality, as contrasted to the stereotypical lasciviousness of the Romans, Greeks..etc But is this really true, or just a stereotype? Are our notions of sexual morality really just rooted in Judeo-Christianity, or are there common links with pre-Christian cultures?

I was talking with a friend last night, and the topic of imperial Japan (WWII specifically) came up. My friend had mentioned that he’d heard that Americans had been trained to block strikes from katanas (perhaps with their guns?) but because of how they were forged they’d cut through the gun and still get the person. Is there any truth to this? And what were the swords specifically intended for? Was it some kind of traditional item, or a last resort, or something else entirely?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Spanish colonies like most of Latin America, Mexico & other Central Americas, the Philippines, they have lots of Spanish x Indigenous people (Mestizo? Hispanic?). And those descendants are so many that they developed & grew their own culture.

I know there are lots of light-skinned Indigenous Australians & New Zealanders, but I don't think there's a new culture created from those descendants; either they identify with the White Australian/New Zealand culture, or they identify as indigenous.

Same with UK & France in North America. I think there are lots of Native Americans / First Nations who are mixed with Europeans, but they either identify as indigenous or they just do not take part in the indigenous culture.

There's no (whatever the equivalent of Hispanics/Mestizo of the UK/France x other colonized people) in the UK, Australia, NZ, or Canada). Except for the Metis people (?), but I think that's an outlier (?).

Hongkong was a UK colony but most of the citizens are still (100%) ethnically Han Chinese.

And since I'm South East Asian: SEA nations were colonized by various European countries, but it seems only the Philippines who have lots of [the colonizer x the colonized] descendants (lots of Filipinos have Spanish surnames too). And even their national language has some Spanish influence.

India (+ Pakistan + Bangladesh), a country with a huge population, was colonized by the UK, but I think there wasn't a lot of mixing going on.

Africa was barely touched by Spain, and also they don't have lots of mixed-race descendants.

My questions are: Did the Spanish Empire have a policy, like, ordering their soldiers to mingle/rape/impregnate/marry the indigenous women (for whatever reason that is)?

How & why did the descendants of the Spaniards x Indigenous grow to have their own culture, while the descendants of the other Europeans didn't?

This question is coming from a non-European/American/Australian/New Zealander, who wasn't taught about European history. I'm sorry for any misinformation / insensitive question. And sorry for the bad English too.

It seems that the story of Moses and his escape from Egypt would have been easy for the slaves of the south to relate to. Did slave owners simply not teach that portion of the Bible to their slaves?

I found in my family's tree a man from the 15 century named Chaim who is the grandfather of the Maharal of Prague and he carried the title of "Head of the state of Ashkenaz" (I am Ashkenazi Jewish)

I couldn't find any information about him or about the state of Ashkenaz expect for his birth and death year (1415 &1475)

Does someone know anything about the state of Ashkenaz?

I know that Yuan Shikai attempted to revive the Chinese monarchy in 1915. How popular was this idea at the time, and to what extent did it persist under the nationalist and communist regimes?

I know a was involved in the revaluation. But he seemed to be so incompetent that he was a hindrance to the cause to say the least. So why is he some sort of American hero ? Full disclosure I'm british ;)

Edit: Sorry but be more specific it seems to me his actions caused or heavily contributed to the disaster with the Penobscot Expedition at Fort George. To the level that I would have thought would loose him most of his credibility. How has he gone down in history idealised and remembered as he is.

Could I for example, stay in a medieval inn and expect privacy and safety? What would I use as a means to travel (horse, carriage, etc)? How would I carry my money and valuables?

Thank you!

Did they even know how approach taking it out? Did they even bother trying to attack the tank? How long was it before the Central Powers came up with countermeasures?

Recently, doing some light genealogical research, I discovered a trove of sources about my great (x5) grandfather and his family who remained loyal to the British government and served as artificers in the British army during the war. After the war, he and his family were evacuated from Penobscot to New Brunswick.

I have some questions. Some of the documents refer to him to being hauled into court:

At a Court of General Sessions of the Peace held at Pownalborough within and for the County of Lincoln, on the last Tuesday of September being the 30th day of said Monty Anno Domini 1777 Thomas Turner recognized in L50 and with him and with him [sic] Jonn Bartlett & William Cookson as Sureties in L25 each, conditioned that the said Thomas appear next Term to answer a presentment of the Grand Jury against him.

James Turner recognized in L50 and with him Thomas Turner & William Cookson as Sureties, in L25 each, conditioned that the said James appear next Term to answer to a presentment of the Grand Jury against him

Later, we hear of these people attempting to travel to Halifax and being impressed into a "rebel" (Patriot) unit before escaping:

"In the beginning of May, 1778, Thomas Turner, James Turner, Cookson, their brother in law, and John and Martin Carlo, two brother, set out on foot, with a design of travelling by land to Halifax, in Nova Scotia.

The met with a prodigious variety of hardships, obstacles and dangers in their journey, not to mention that perpetual dread of detection, which attended their route. At length, meeting with a number of rebel soldiers, their were constrained to enlist, but were honest enough to refuse the money will they should arrive at Machias. However, instead of proceeding directly to the place of rendezvous, they visited the famous Col Jones, and applied to him for advice and direction. This gentleman provided our adventurers with a boat, in form of a barge, in which they embarked without any knowledge either of the way, or of navigation. They however ventured to row along shore, in consequence of some general instructions, and then crossed over, by accident, to Grand Manan, and seeing land at a great distance, they set off at daylight, and continued to contend with a boisterous sea till after dark, without arriving at any shore. During all this tedious day, they were obliged to ply the oars with their utmost strength, till they were quite discouraged, and their vigour exhausted, but knowing that any relaxation of their struggles would be fatal, they continued their labours without ceasing, will after midnight, when they entered a bay, round which they discovered a large number of settlements. In this situation they were full of anxiety, for being ignorant in what region they had fallen, they were extremely uneasy lest this territory belonged to the rebels. But, upon inquiry, they perceived, to their inexpressible satisfaction, themselves withing the limits of Nova Scotia, and that they town before them was a settlement which belonged to the ancient French inhabitants. Here the inhabitants were kind enough to give them ample refreshment. This place being not far distant from Annapolis, they took the first opportunity of going thither, and from thence proceeded by land to Halifax, where they got into business. James Turner and Cookson are still in this town; Thomas Turner and John Carlo, at Penobscot, and Martin Carlo, at Lunenburg.

Shortly thereafter, they are found to be in default by the court for failing to appear. They then reappear as carpenters rebuilding Fort George after the American attack on New Ireland before settling in New Brunswick.

Can anyone who is more of an expert on Revolutionary America shed some light on what may have happened here? Were they fugitives who latched onto the British cause? Were they committed Loyalists who were being dispossessed by the Revolutionary government? And, once they got to Canada, what would their lives have been like?

Let’s say “I” am a socialiat pacifist; I understand most young Parisian men would be eager to defend the patrie against the Germans, but “I” am not.

I'm asking more from the perspective of Romans/Greeks or other civilizations that were in close proxemity to a sea/ocean. I'm aware that the concept of tourism didn't really exist in those times. I mean it's kind of far fetched to think some from a german tribe would travel to the Mediterranean Sea to get a tan. But what about civilizations that had easy access to a beach? Did they have this form of entertainment or is more of a modern concept.

Just watched a certain video about this topic. Author states that Japan didn't want to surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because they:

1. Knew that USA was not able to have a lot of nuclear bombs.

2. Wanted to surrender on good terms(having all the territory they conquered before and throughout WWII).

3. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the most damaged cities.

The main point of the video is the reason why Japan surrendered was that Soviets destroyed Japanese Army under Manchuria.