Were these groups alive at the same time and have they ever interacted with each other ? Also What's the difference between Romans and Spartans ?
1 Answers 2018-09-23
4 Answers 2018-09-23
I know that the small colony was lost by the Swedes to the Dutch, who then absorbed it into their own, and then of course the Dutch colony was lost and absorbed by the English/British into their own, but what happened to the small population of Finns and Swedes who initially stayed across the pond? Did they become fully absorbed into the Dutch population of early America?
2 Answers 2018-09-23
Serious question, it seems like a date for the apocalypse to begin if anything is. I know that most places on the Earth back then didn't use the same calendar (nor were Christian) but I reckon Christianity and the modern calendar were widespread enough that surely there must've been folk who thought they had 1 year left on Earth when 665 began.
1 Answers 2018-09-23
While it was an entertaining read, I was wondering what historical inaccuracies it might have, given that the author is not a historian and has co-authored books with Bill O'Reilly that have historical inaccuracies/liberties in them. What particularly interests me is that the book states that Bobadilla, who had replaced Columbus as governor and imprisoned him, had enslaved the Taino and was recalled after the Spanish monarchs found out about this behavior. Additionally, it states that Ferdinand and Isabela were outraged by Columbus's treatment by Bobadilla and believed his side of the story, which seems quite remarkable given the content of Bobadilla's report on Columbus's rule.
1 Answers 2018-09-23
2 Answers 2018-09-23
1 Answers 2018-09-23
Why was the treat of Versailles placed upon Germany? I understand they lost the war but why was it so harsh? I've seen quite a few WW2 and WW1 documentaries and they always say it was a harsh treaty but never say why... Was Germany ultimately blamed for the cause of WW1? Did Austria-Hungry have similar restrictions placed upon them? What about the Ottomans? What type of war reparations were placed on Turkey? I understand there was global consequences for the England, loss of their empire, was this a reason?
1 Answers 2018-09-23
I’m wondering if anyone can shed light on the physical health of America’s youngest Commander in Chief, especially during his presidency. What I’ve been able to find is that he drank a gallon of coffee each day, was very athletic, enjoyed gymnastics, and constantly curled his hand into a fist just from excessive energy. His personal and political identity were defined by this unceasing exuberance; we even owe the estate tax and a lot of antitrust law to TR’s insistence that the federal government needed to be this unendingly active force of nature just like him.
So how was Teddy’s health? I always imagine him talking really quickly, almost twitching whenever he needed to sit still, and running all over the nation giving speeches — interrupted only by explosive coffee-fueled bathroom trips. Was TR a healthy man? How did his diet and exercise regimen affect his politics?
1 Answers 2018-09-23
What did they seek to gain from the conflict?
1 Answers 2018-09-23
I hope this is a decent place to ask this question. If not I will gladly delete it, and my apologies.
I’m doing some family research and came across a divorce ruling a few generations back (in 1912).
In the first article I found, the husband sued the wife for divorce, alleging that she had abandoned him and the children and run off god knows where.
In the second article, which was really more a brief about the ruling, it said the wife was given custody of the children and the husband was “enjoined from entering into marriage for two years.”
Does anybody know what a plausible reason would be for that ruling? I mean the custody thing I understand, children were usually given to the mother, but why the injunction against marrying again?
2 Answers 2018-09-23
I've googled this and can't find an actual definition. Is it just sweepings of leftover powder or something else?
1 Answers 2018-09-23
I am aware that the duke of Brandenburg inherited or entered some sort of union with a secularized teutonic order in Ost Preussen but was this land outside of the empire enough to allow them to gain power in their region while other couldn't? Why were they simply allowed to annex land, shouldn't that be a concern for the entire empire? Were they favoured by the Kaisers or something?
1 Answers 2018-09-23
The country was known and sparsely settled as far north as the Orange River, but beyond there was a great region which had never been penetrated save by some daring hunter or adventurous pioneer. It chanced—if there be indeed such an element as chance in the graver affairs of man—that a Zulu conqueror had swept over this land and left it untenanted, save by the dwarf bushmen, the hideous aborigines, lowest of the human race. There were fine grazing and good soil for the emigrants. They traveled in small detached parties, but their total numbers were considerable, from six to ten thousand according to their historian, or nearly a quarter of the whole population of the colony. Some of the early bands perished miserably. A large number made a trysting-place at a high peak to the east of Bloemfontein in what was lately the Orange Free State. One party of the emigrants was cut off by the formidable Matabeli, a branch of the great Zulu nation. The survivors declared war upon them, and showed in this, their first campaign, the extraordinary ingenuity in adapting their tactics to their adversary which has been their greatest military characteristic. The commando which rode out to do battle with the Matabeli numbered, it is said, a hundred and thirty-five farmers. Their adversaries were twelve thousand spearmen. They met at the Marico River, near Mafeking. The Boers combined the use of their horses and of their rifles so cleverly that they slaughtered a third of their antagonists without any loss to themselves. Their tactics were to gallop up within range of the enemy, to fire a volley, and then to ride away again before the spearmen could reach them. When the savages pursued the Boers fled. When the pursuit halted the Boers halted and the rifle fire began anew. The strategy was simple but most effective. When one remembers how often since then our own horsemen have been pitted against savages in all parts of the world, one deplores that ignorance of all military traditions save our own which is characteristic of our service.
Edit. Reposting link.
2 Answers 2018-09-23
I'm thinking about how the French Revolution brought more meritocracy to the military, allowing the young state to defeat the more established powers.
2 Answers 2018-09-23
1 Answers 2018-09-23
1 Answers 2018-09-23
[deleted]
2 Answers 2018-09-23
Just wondering why we call people “WASPs” today (white Anglo Saxon Protestants) or if most British ancestry is actually Danish/Norman.
1 Answers 2018-09-23
1 Answers 2018-09-23
As an example of the sort of thing I'm wondering about, I recently had a shower thought where I realized that the Arabic word "emir" sounds like it could have derived from the Latin "imperator".
1 Answers 2018-09-23