I want to do research for a film I'm writing, and I'd rather read primary sources and adapt from that than base it on a summary somewhere. In this case, it's the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889.

If he was, how much did he watch? I know he couldn't have seen all 3 seasons, but I want to know what he thought about it.

[deleted]

In many myths and tales I've heard that church bells were removed and buried or thrown into lake before approaching enemy army during medieval age.

What was the reason? Were they that valuable? Or was it common to melt them and make cannons out of metal? Or what?

I realize the powers of the various assemblies and magistrates waxed and waned over the years and that makes this a difficult question to answer. But in general, electing 10 people with absolute veto power seems like a terrible idea because it would grind everything to a halt. I find it hard to imagine they elected 10 different people each year for 300 years and nobody spent a full year blanket vetoing the Senate to get their way until Tiberius Gracchus. Were there any checks on the veto besides the requirement for the tribune to be present?

​

And more broadly, did the plebeians end up with more power than the patricians by the late republic? Reading about the roles of the patricians and plebeians, it seems that the patricians eventually ceded enough power that it held little distinction except for religious positions. Plebeians could join the senate and be elected as consuls. But they had the unique plebeian council and tribune of the plebs office. Did the patricians retain any other unique powers by the late republic?

​

I'm sure there are some misconceptions in this post, so thanks for bearing with me and correcting them.

For most of their respective histories the countries of England and France have fought each other numerous times (e.g., the Hundred years war, the Napoleonic wars) yet by the 20th century they are allies in WWI. What happened that made the countries forget their years of bad blood?

I am writing a research paper about Slavery and Indentured Servitude before Bacon's Rebellion, but I am not sure if Black Indentured Servants existed. I thought it did at first from my 10 second Google search, however, my professor disagrees. In order to change her mind, she tells me to find a primary source stating that Black Indentured Servants existed.

I've done some more research now and found out about this person named Anthony Johnson, who came to Virginia as a Black Slave, but was given freedom and eventually owned land and had servants of his own. Apparently he also made one of his servants into the first legal Slave in America.

Some other sites states that the line between Blacks and Indentured Servants were blurred in the 17th century until Slave laws came about; early documents would reference "Servants" to both Black "Slaves" and White Indentured Servants.

Another source says that there were records which indicates Blacks reviving "freedom dues" at the end of their term by giving them land.

Based on what I have so far I would assume there were Black Indentured Servants, but she needs primary sources for me to prove her wrong. So far I only have a book and some websites (.edu), BUT she wants primary sources.

Maybe what she was trying to get at was that Black Indentured Servitude was extremely rare so it is not even worth to mention it?

My question is: were there actually Black Indentured Servants in 17th century Virginia and if there was, were there any primary source which proves that?

Thank you for your time.

Even thinking back to high school history classes we were taught that the US played a huge role in winning the war and if they actually didn’t, why is it made it seem that way? could the war have been won without US involvement ?

For example Queen Victoria, I’ve read she married her cousin and in today’s world that would be called incest, was that not a concern back then?

[deleted]

It seems mind boggling to me, the face of Stoic philosophy let his son who lacked the motivation, intellect, and discipline to succeed him. It seems weird a Stoic would let his fatherly sentiment cloud his judgment about his successor? And precedent was set before him, Emperors weren't exactly choosing their sons anyways? He was the first to let his son succeed him. Why did the Stoic Emperor let a son incompetent for the job succeed him and basically put Rome on the wrong path? What explains this lapse in judgment?

​

EDIT: Also, in what ways did Marcus prepare his son to be Emperor?

I don’t hear it much these days but listening to older antisemitic stuff or Hitler speak he/they use “Jew” and communist almost in the same breath. Even in more recent conversations I feel like the lines get blurred for both people trying to unfairly imply someone is being antisemitic and for people trying to hide their antisemitism.

How blurred were those lines back then? Were either Jews seen as communists or communists seen as Jews?

Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were also Jewish, why do proponents of their politics never really run into that issue?

I completely understand that it was an attempt to reclaim Jerusalem. But for what reason would they possibly think sending children to fight a war was a good idea? Was it simply a matter of they lacked enough adults to launch a campaign?

Note: I did a little bit of searching and I couldn't find this question previously asked. If it has been, mods please delete my post or let me know and I'll delete it. Less clutter is better.

[deleted]

I'm writing a book and want it to be historically accurate. I can't find the article, just a mention of it.

Was it just not significant enough to warrant the troops? We’re their plans to take over the country eventually?

I noticed in medieval era shows such as Game of Thrones some armies of soldiers have more or less the same armor for all soldiers whereas some have rag-tag armaments that are randomly chosen. Is this historically accurate?