Specifically I’ve learned that Lincoln gave almost no campaign speeches, and in Washington: A Life, Chernow points out that in Washington’s first political campaign, he never participated at any point in the process.

Was the shift sudden or gradual, and was it lamented as the end of decency/modesty?

Especially after the defeat at the Little Bighorn, you’d think the Army would get a clue.

I know that the Celts invented the standard barrel that we see in medieval and colonial settings but was it used outside of Europe and the west? Was it at least use during the early modern era in the middle east? Considering the proximity I'm inclined to think that they did. And what about the Byzantines and Greeks during the Ottoman era, did they use amphorae for storing wine or did they use barrels?

I was recently reading about the 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 gun used on the Alaska class "cruisers" (These ships seem to better described as battle cruisers though). According to Wikipedia, they had a barrel life of 344 shots, which was 54 more than the 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns of the Iowa class. My question, is how would barrels be changed on these sorts of ships? Would they carry extra on board, or would they have to return to port to replace them? 344 shots doesn't actually sound like that many to me, so it seems replacing them would have been common if the ship saw lots of action.

Did both think of themselves as the Romans or the Roman Empire?

Or they just thought , why to waste money , manpower and resources in tiny mountain country, with much little to gain ?

Hey everyone, I'm working on a research paper about Carthage for a class and the professor has required that we use at least 3 primary sources for this paper. Of course in the "Aeneid" Virgil tells some of the founding myth of Carthage, but from the perspective of someone several centuries later so I don't know if he qualifies as a primary source. Thanks in advance Edit: Grammar

With the exception of mineral-rich Dacia, which had mines that easily covered the expense of holding it, there hadn't been a serious attempt to conquer more central European land since Augustus (Tiberius briefly thought about it)

My understanding is that Central Europe didn't have enough taxable cities or valuable goods, was heavily wooded, would cost a lot of lives and money to conquer, and then would take huge sums of money to to garrison and develop, which explains why the Romans didn't press beyond the Danube.

People beyond the Danube periodically rose up and tried to invade, but the Romans beat them back and went back to the old border.

Why did the calculus change during the marcomannic wars to make Marcus Aurelius try to annex two new huge swaths of territory. Was the land more developed and more easily taxable now?

What was going on?

This is a claim that commonly appears online in discussions around Christian Universalism (the belief that everyone will ultimately be 'saved' in a Christian sense - 'everyone goes to Heaven eventually', if you will), and as far as I can tell the specific formulation originates with Edward Beecher in the 19th century. But how accurate is this description of Christianity a couple of centuries after the Resurrection? Can we really identify several distinctive 'schools' of theological belief in the early Church, and if so, what are some of the key things that distinguished them from each other and what are the geographical or social contours of this state of affairs?

Just to be clear, I am a Christian who believes in universal salvation myself, and I'm not necessarily asking about the claim as it specifically relates to the history of that belief - this is just the context I've encountered it in. It's the kind of 'fault lines' in early Christianity in general that intrigue me here, and especially the idea that there were (according to this claim) already half a dozen fairly distinct, cohesive schools of thought so early in the Church's history.

Something that has always puzzled me, is the accuracy of maps in the days before human flight. How were they able to draw maps which accurately reflected the real world's coastlines when they only had sea travel at their disposal

Getting into 20th century history recently for fun like learning exact dates of wars and such. Something that caught my attention were tactics and such in fights. (I have been always looking into simulations and such of the fighting. So how did they win in fights?

Did they know the people that came before them were way more advanced with plumbing and democracy? Or were they a mysterious civilization that left buildings and bridges all over the place?

Last year in my US history class my teacher said that when Marie Antoinette said “let them eat cake” she was talking about the dried up crust or grease that would build up in ovens overtime not actual cake. I just want to know if this is true because I can’t find anywhere that says this.

I'm currently a final year undergrad Law student at a Top UK university (Oxbridge, UCL, KCL, LSE) and so far i've realised that the modules I have enjoyed the most were the ones with a historical focus. I have even done an undergrad dissertation which I absolutely loved the whole way through and while i've already completed several internships in banks and law firms, the legal history part really seems to be nudging me towards grad school.

​

Would it be a bad idea for this? I suppose the end goal would be a PhD and eventually academia but seeing how cutthroat it already is, am I daft for aiming for this?

​

PS: The LLM I am considering is at UCL as they have a good legal history department and if it matters, i've been an editor on a couple of undergrad law reviews.