While I am aware Rome had a no sword/dagger policy (which led to body guards carrying scribing pens), but were other periods of history and locations also as strict? Did most men during the Renaissance carry a rapier, or only the wealthy, and did they have to be registered? These questions stem from Luke's account of the last supper where Peter whips out two swords in roman occupied Jerusalem.

One thing that has always perplexed me was how Britain, a relatively small country, could have been so successful a colonization around the world. What were the primary competitive advantages that the British had over countries like France and Spain?

Just joined this community, and this has probably been asked before.

I'm often impressed by the exacting detail that seems to be available for the people and events involved, like Caesar, Pompey, Cicero, Augustus etc. In fact I'm impressed to the point that it seems a bit hard to believe, when it comes to ancient history I'm much more used to a huge degree of muddiness to our understanding of events and the personalities involved, like the accounts of Alexander the Great seem to be shrouded in mystery and centuries of propaganda that came afterward, and thinking about Rome itself for the periods that followed the End of the Republic there seem to be some quite noticeable holes, for example, even though their reigns seem to have been peaceful, prosperous and long it seems as though we have a real dearth of information when it comes to Trajan, or Antoninus Pius. I can at least understand better why, say, the crisis of the third century would be relatively poorly documented, but the late republic seems to be incredibly well-resolved in our understanding considering how long ago it was. I also get the impression that documentation of the period, to a certain extent, cuts through the winners attempts to control the narrative, I imagine people might scoff at me saying so considering Caesar's self documentation in his Gallic War, but for example we are quite well aware of the negative aspects of Caesar and Augustus and who their enemies were and what they were often saying about them. In addition its kind of amazing to me that we have such a direct line to the individual of Caesar through a work like that, again that seems radically different compared to other Titans of the ancient world like Cyrus or Alexander.

So I guess the gist of the question is just how do we end up in this position where we seem to know so damn much about the late Republic, in comparison to other times in Roman history or other parts of the contemporary world? Were the events leading to the transition to empire just so damn important that people made sure they were documented with more clarity than they might otherwise? Were they so important that records were continuously copied and studied to keep this history clear and accurate in peoples minds for centuries afterward?

France and Germany were two completely different countries in the eighteen hundred when it comes to the difference between the rule systems that were implemented. France had a lot of internal turmoil and a constant change between royalties, liberals and emperors on the “throne”, while Germany stayed mostly conservative the whole time at first fragmented in the different Germanic states and later in the German unification. The revolution in 1848 resulted completely different too, with a regime change in France but no real change in Germany. I think both countries consisted of a lot of smaller semi-independent kingdoms that was ruled over by a national government of some sorts. Was there a larger difference between the different French kingdoms than the German ones to stay stable under one leader?

Was the term used during the Republic or was it invented later? Also what happened to it after Rome became an empire 27. B.C.E.?

This is the full quotation from the Army vet in question, Ray Leopold:

In the process of this battle we took about 18 or 19 German prisoners. A young man approximately 24 years of age turned to me, and in a voice completely accent-free, he said, "Where are you from?" I said, "I'm from the United States." "Where... in the United States?" "The Northeast," I said. "Where Northeast?" I said, "I'm from Connecticut." "Where in Connecticut?" He was persisting. I said "Yes, I'm from Waterbury, Connecticut." "Ah, yes," he said, "Waterbury, at the junction of the Naugatuck and Mad Rivers." Now you have to know a bit about the area. The Naugatuck is a fairly substantial river, but the Mad River is a little stream that you can jump across without any trouble. Anyone who knew this... I was puzzled. I said, "How did you possibly know that?" He said, "I was in training for the administration." "The administration of what?" I said. He said, "The administration of the territories." My blood ran cold. I couldn't imagine that Hitler, in his wildest imagination, not only had figured he practically had Europe in his grasp, but he also figured that he would control America, too.

Is Leopold simply an old man manufacturing a story to make his experience sound more interesting, or was there a cadre of military bureaucrats genuinely being trained on American geography during the war? If so, what were the ultimate goals and aspirations the high command had for North America after wrestling control of Europe?

I think Roman Genius and Arab Jinn, share similar concepts and very similar sounds!

There is a specific type of Jinn named Qareen that born with a human and dies with him and remains with him all of his life (in Arab mythology) and this is very similar to Genius.

I'm wondering if they relate to each other in a way.

My history teacher told us that the reasons that world war 2 started are found in the ending of world war 1. I know the treaty of versailles was a huge punishment for Germany and this is, according to my teacher, 1 of the main reasons why World war 2 started. My question is, how did Germany manage to build such a strong economy, raise a strong army that again can start a world war despite all the economical repercussions it was facing because of the treaty. With all the financial compensations it had to do to neighbouring countries i can't really wrap my mind around the fact that they got so strong economically in only 15-20 years to start another world war.

When tribes were forced from their local lands, did they abandon on the “sacred sites” and make new ones or did they still hold the old land sacred. Especially aboriginals, who have very special meaning for land, do we know all their sacred sites or have most been forgotten and built over? For American Native, they were forced across America, so are the sacred lands, from their old home or from their new homes they were forced to go to?

In medieval times, some people will be considered the founder of a dynasty but they clearly had parents, and their parents had parents and so on. Why do we consider a dynasty to start where it does or rather what’s considered the president for a dynasty to be “formed”? Is it a prestige thing? Or is the founder just as far back as the family can be traced?

Forgive me, it’s another post on r/askhistorians about Hamilton. I did try to do a search, but did not find anything really related to this question.

Alexander Hamilton was a bastard son of a prostitute, while Elizabeth Schuyler was the daughter of a wealthy political type. However, from what I’ve read (and it’s not a lot) they seem to have had a short courtship followed by an engagement readily consented to by Elizabeth’s father. My understanding of 18th century societal norms are admittedly pretty colored by Jane Austen novels, however, I’m curious to know if Hamilton’s background/parentage would have been a concern for Philip Schuyler. Would this engagement have raised eyebrows? Or was Hamilton’s position as an aide to Washington enough to ignore his origins?

I've been having a tough time finding information regarding this. I know a lot of tribes possessed excellent cavalry and archers, but how were troops deployed? Were there set piece battles like in Europe and Asia or was everyone just sort of expected to go where they were needed? Also how was this different before the reintroduction of horses to North America?

​

I recognize that's a lot of questions and that Native Americans on one side of the continent probably didn't fight like those on the other, and that their tactics would have changed over time.

​

Really any info I could get would be greatly appreciated.

Louis XIV. "Roi Soleil" had a difficult relationship with the leader of the catholic church to say the least, but unlike other monarchs who sought to more or less replace the role of the pope like Henry VIII. of England, Louis wasn't excommunicated unlike Henry VIII. I searched quite a bit online but couldn't find a sufficient answer so I'm hoping for an explanation on here. Thank you very much in advance. ^^

Is it true that part of why it was called "The Dark Ages" was because it was actually always dark due to climate change?