I've heard that Eisenhower had a requirement for the highway system to have stretches long enough that a commercial airplane could land on it in an emergency. Is this true, if so, was there a specific event that inspired this requirement, or did he just think it was a good idea? Also, has this requirement been maintained over the years as new highways have been built? It seems with overpasses, signs, light/telephone poles, concrete medians, etc, that it would be extremely difficult to it safely, even with no emergency. Is this a true story?

Part of the common story of the '49ers is they faced huge difficulties getting to California, either by sailing around the Horn, going through Panama or crossing the American continent. When they got there they allegedly pulled huge amounts of gold out of the ground.

Well, what then? Once a '49er gets a few gold nuggets in his pocket how does he turn that into something useful? Who was purchasing it, and how were they safely returning it back to the eastern states?

What was the typical ratio of killed and wounded in early modern warfare? Is there some change through the period based on development of new weapons? Also I wonder why the ratio is highly different between units in the same battle, e. g. at the battle of Leuthen, the ingantry regikent Kalckstein has 24 killed/missing and 56 wounded, but the infantry regiment Markgraf Karl has 64 killed/missing vs. 643 wounded. Any possible reasons for this?

More than the stereotypical Roman olive oil orgies, of course.

Edit: I just realized I misspelled adultery in the title. I feel silly.

And what led him to execute one of the worst genocide in history?

What's the explanation for the weird fact that women got political rights in the West only in the early 20th century (granted, some countries gave them rights in late 19th century, but not earlier) while women could rule as queens and empresses much earlier? Did anyone in e.g. France during the French revolution considered giving voting rights to all?

As far as I can tell, a lot of real equality came with the washing machine and the birth control pill, but de jure rights came decades earlier, and they don't seem to be connected with anything else happening at the same time?

I love ancient Egypt, it blows my mind, but pardon my ignorance.

The Egyptians were around for thousands and thousands of years yes? Are there any cemeteries or anything of the like that have been uncovered? I realise their population wouldn’t have been much by today’s standards, but wouldn’t there be a lot of bodies lying around somewhere from thousands of years of civilisation? Look at how many graveyards we have around today.

Real question, I’ve never heard anything about this.

I appreciate this is kind of a broad subject, that could have many essays written on and that it could cause some strong reactions. But as far as I understand it, (please tell me if I'm wrong) that historically, within the conservative Republican party there has been a emphasis on both Christian values and on the benefits of Capitalism, the more free market the better.( Similarly with the Conservatives in the UK.) But to me, at least on the surface, these two seem antithetical to each other. One emphasising self sacrifice, giving all you have to the poor and dedicating your life to following god, the other that "greed is good," that you should always act in your rational self interest. If someone has less than you it's their fault for not working hard enough.

​

So how did these two seemingly contradictory philosophies come to be held by the same people?

I've heard that the Romans and later cultures made this up to demonize the "barbarians". I've also been told that there are first hand accounts by Romans who witnessed this ritual. And if so, how would they go about getting all of the sacrifices into the structure without escape.

European colonist brought so many diseases to Yucatan Peninsula, Hawaii etc. that the natives had no immunity for and killed significant portions of their population. Why didn't it happen the other way around as well?

Hi all, I have a question about the classical world, specifically Europe, but I am happy with answers about Asia, Africa, and the Americas as well (as I am here to learn!)

​

I am of the understanding that "race" as a concept is fairly modern, and that the classical and even medieval eras had different conceptions of these things (if at all). I remember reading, or even hearing in a podcast (apologies for the source amnesia), that in Ancient Greece, for example, a person whose heritage could be traced back to Africa (and was of a dark complexion), if they were born and raised in Greece and were culturally Greek, were considered "Greek", not African.

​

Basically, my understanding is that people viewed race more akin with the culture someone exhibited rather than skin colour, or where they were from geographically. Is this a correct assumption?

I've recently been looking into Korea-Japan relations in order to understand the sorry state of affairs that exists between the countries today. A Korean person I was speaking to recently made an off hand remark about Japan being predatory and looting precious cultural artifacts from Korea during the Sengoku period, or thereabouts.

I have some concerns that 19th/20th century events have pushed some Korean media/scholars to inflate historical tensions as part of a nationalist narrative, and would like to know more about this aspect.

From the sengoku period until the beginning of the Meiji period, could Japanese treatment of Korea be characterized as exploitative and predatory? To what extent were significant Korean cultural articles such as books, temples, treasures, looted or stolen by the Japanese? Was this state organized, local lords, or piracy? Was this a major concern of Koreans during that era or only focused on retroactively?

Before school buses did children just walk to school? How far did they walk? Did they take the train? Were High Schools simply not available in more rural areas until buses were available?

I’ve always read that the Roman Army by the end of the WRE was mostly ethnically German. Was this really the case?

Some background: I'm reading "Narrative of a Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea in the Years 1819-20-21-22" Volume One by John Franklin, published by Scholar Select. It's a collection of Sir John Franklin's journals, but he uses miles as a measurement and not kilometers.

​

Did other British captains do this?

[deleted]