A lot of the compromises that went into crafting the Federal government -- and even the drawing of States themselves -- were greatly influenced by slave power. Given that this entire side was obviated at the end of the civil war, was there any consideration to reimagining the government?

"The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl was perhaps the true cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union." This was apparently said by Mikhail Gorbachev in 2006, as stated at the end of episode 5 in HBO's miniseries, based on the nuclear meltdown which happened in 1986.

How accurate this is? What are some of the arguments for and against this? Did the nuclear meltdown cause some form of long term effect on the Soviet Union that caused the collapse?

I've heard this fact somewhere, but I haven't been able to track down any sources to verify it. I want to use it as an example in an ethics lesson for a course I'm putting together for engineers (the importance of context, understanding the larger impact their work will have). Thanks!

I might be reading into this, but when I researching for something, I realised that most ‘famous’ samurais and warriors had died in the 6th and 7th months. I don’t know if this was because of something like weather, as they all died different years and or different days. I just want to know if anyone knows about this, or has any answers.

Minamoto no Yoshitsune died 15 June 1189 Oda Nobunaga died 21 June 1582 Sanada Yukimura died 3 June 1615 Date Masamune died 27 June 1636 Mitsuhide Akechi died 2 July 1582 Chosokabe Motochika died 11 July 1599 Hijikata Toshizō died 20 June 1869 Okita Sōji died 19 July 1868 Harada Sanosuke died 6 July 1868 Okada Izō died 3 June 1865 (There might be more, but these are the ones that I know. Also more ‘famous’ than the others I know of)

I've always wondered how the CSA was able to get so many guns, weapons, and uniforms on the field so quickly. By the time mid 1862 came along, they looked like a real organised army that could take on a medium sized European country.

How exactly did they get so much equipment, and how did they organize their secession all at once? And why were so many generals and commanders willing to work with them?

[deleted]

Further, how did the segregation and anti-miscegenation states' courts argue this in context of the "separate but equal" doctrine/ideology?

How large was UK's dominance in Irish trade during the Anglo-Irish Trade War? Is there any resource that provides exact percentage figures for the amount of Irish exports that went to the UK, and the proportion of total Irish imports that were from the UK during this time?

I am just reading " Third Reich at War" by Evans. In the Chapters about the situation of occupied Poland from 39 to 42 he talks about the order police and their ideological training. I am paraphraseing here but i think he fundamentally disagrees with Brownings Ordinary Men and his Arguments on why the order police did what they did. Did they undergo intense ideological training? Who has the better standing here?

My question here comes from thinking about the elite market for AZT and other early anti-retroviral drugs in the '80s and '90s, how they were horribly expensive and exploited the suffering of desperate patients.

I am aware that Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928, but it wasn't available commercially en masse until about 1943. But what happened after WWII? The Penicillium fungus may be everywhere but not everyone had the technology to make it usable as medicine. I remember a thread about "Who had the best medical care in WWII?" mentioning the Allies had antibiotics first.

For example, did France control the supply of penicillin to Algeria and Indochina? Did Britain control the supply to India before 1947? Did independence from colonial empires make the drug cheaper?

I’ve always wondered why Carthage never became a prominent city under Muslim rule the way it was during classical antiquity. It seems that the major cities of medieval Tunisia were Kairouan, Mahdia, and then later Tunis. I did read that Carthage was supposedly destroyed in the Muslim conquest, but I don’t know how true that is. The reason I’m asking is because I also read, not just on this sub but also from Theodore Ayrault Dodge, that one of the main reasons why Carthage grew in prominence was because of it’s strategic location, which was apparently great for trade and commerce. If this is the case, then why didn’t the advantages of Carthage’s location lead it to assume a more prominent position in Tunisia during the reign of the various Muslim dynasties that ruled in Tunisia?

I remember some story about a Helot that fought alongside some women defending a village against some bandits. In return, when the men returned, they symbolically bound his hands and then cut the binding off, handing him a sword, and making him a Spartan. How accurate or common would this have been?

​

Were there any differences between "Spartans" and "Spartiates?"Or is that just a different spelling of the same word?

​

I'll look up a source sometime soon, but I wanted to put this up just in case it gets a response.

I have been studying the use of “Arsenokoitai” by the Apostle Paul when writing his portion of what became the New Testament (specifically I Corinthians 6:9) but I have found (expectedly) that there is massive debate with people saying completely different things as fact.

Where can I find reliable academic sources on this issue, and any Bible mistranslations for that matter, that are not so religiously biased?

Additionally, I wouldn’t be opposed to reading into some of the Christian perspective and counter arguments but I find that it is much more difficult to find secular sources on interpreting religious texts.

I always see great questions on here but every time I go to see the responses they are mostly removed. What gives?