Tonight, my wife and I engaged in a heated debate on whether or not the American Civil War and Civil Rights Movement history was taught different in the South vs. the North. She was deeply offended when I pointed out that her history books were likely lenient on the Confederate states, and those who opposed the civil rights movement. We both attended primary and high school in the 80’s and 90’s. Unfortunately I was speculating, and I either need to apologize, or further state my case. Can anyone shed light on my hypothesis?

Perhaps this is a bad question, but why did the West want a piece of Berlin?

For those who don't know, 王 literally means "king", and is apparently the most common surname in the world (RIP me). From what I understand, some families do have distant connections to royal bloodlines, but that can only account for a tiny percentage of the population. Did a huge population of peasants just adopt 王 to try and elevate their status?

(Would also appreciate some background on Chinese surnames in general if possible! I was inspired by a recent post about Anglo-Saxon vs Norman surnames in the British Isles.)

In particular I've noticed this deep rich history and civilization that Inca's and Aztec's had in the Pre-Colombian era, yet I'm hard pressed to find anything similar in regards to America or Canada for that matter. It seems they were more nomadic and divided(in the sense of the multitude of tribes) the more North you went. Is there a reason for this?

A unit description in Rome 2 said this so I was curious

I was just watching World War 2 in Colour and it showed a conference in 1943 in Casablanca where Roosevelt and Churchill were both present. I'm aware of a few of these conferences between world leaders and it made me wonder how Roosevelt got across the Atlantic? Did he just go in an ordinary ship and risk interception by Nazi/Italian navy/air force? Stalin and Churchill must've also crossed some pretty treacherous areas?

I am primarily studying Phoenician history and i am puzzled with statements in Herodotus, they don't seem to make much sense.

Herodotus 7.89
These Phoenicians formerly dwelt, as they themselves say, by the Red Sea; they crossed from there and now inhabit the seacoast of Syria. This part of Syria as far as Egypt is all called Palestine.

The Red Sea was not connected too the Mediterranean prior to the construction of Canal, is Herodotus claiming they sailed around Africa to the shores of Syria and how many seas are called "red"?

Herodotus 1.1
The Persian learned men say that the Phoenicians were the cause of the dispute. These (they say) came to our seas from the sea which is called Red.

What are these disputes, they sail from the Red Sea to where?

Herodotus 1.4
Phoenicians came to Argos, Io and others were seized and thrown into the ship, which then sailed away for Egypt

Historical context?

I sort of see two models of slavery, a legalistic one and a racial one. Most historians seem to see the transience of black freedom in the South (e.g. a freeman being wrongly called a runaway and being enslaved) as a way of indicating that the racial component should be emphasized. However, I am wondering if manumission rates among whiter slaves really were high enough to maintain the White Supremacy/Black Enslavement Ideology I see ascribed. Maybe I am overestimating how many "white" slaves there were; but I have been under the impression that slavers raping their slaves was disturbingly high.

I have been assigned the part of Brutus in a Brutus on Trial court case that we are doing in my class and it is worth 1100 points. My goal right now is to figure out the details of the relationship between Caesar and Brutus. Preferably reasons why their relationship fell apart and how they acted around each other and other stuff like that. Thank you

Hi, not sure if this is for historians, and if someone knows a better sub for this, please let me know. Been thinking a lot about black face, as have we all. When I grew up in the south the only exposure I had to this idiom as theater that I was aware of was on cartoons like Bugs Bunny and Dumbo. I did know that Al Jolson wore blackface in the first talkie, but did not associate with the south. As an adult, I learned much more, having studied on the history of songwriting and various popular musical styles, and I can recognize many of the tropes in various aspects of popular culture even when not accompanied by obvious signifiers. Yes, I'm chagrined by the south's perpetuation of this idiom. What I am wondering is whether some of the themes that are common in white southern "country" variety shows had an origin in minstrelsy, or if they developed separately. I am thinking in particular of Hee Haw and old Grand Old Oprey skits where there would be music and then people would stop and set up a corny joke, usually at the expense of a character depicted as more of a country bumpkin than the others, so all us city folks can laugh. This seems like it could be related to some of the Jim Crow comedy routines that black people did where someone is talking to his country cousin and everyone laughs at/with him. Did these routines come out of vaudeville outside of the minstrel idiom, or does pretty much all American variety show theater start there? Are these types of routines related at all? Thanks.

​

​

I was reading something a while ago that claimed a group of British soldiers were swimming in a river because they were given a few days free time, and a group of other British soldiers came along drunk and started throwing grenades into the water with them and I think it said taking pot shots with rifles. Is this sort of thing documented in reliable sources or is it likely just made up?

Time Period : 1200’s

Question 1: How much would a trained Infantry-man make a day? A week ? A Month ? A year?

Question 2: How much would a Knight make a day? A week ? A Month ? A year?