If you’re on horseback, both you and the horse need water daily, I assume. Was there always water somewhere within a day’s ride, and how did they locate it?

Some of my friends told me that it was a common thing in the South to sell black infants as fishing bait, specifically to catch alligators. They say there is a lot of memorabilia and other evidence to prove it, but all they tell me is they found this “on the internet.” I just find it hard to believe, because it seems economically inefficient. It’s so shocking that it seems like clickbait, so I was hoping to find more back up for it if it existed.

I am currently reading Ambrose's Band of Brothers (after reading Citizen Soldiers, which is probably my favorite book).

Pg 85: "Sink put Winters in for the Congressional Medal of Honor. Only one man per division was to be given that ultimate medal for the Normandy Campaign; in the 101st it went to Lt.Colonel Robert Cole for leading a bayonet charge in Carentan. Winters recieved the Distinguished Service Cross."

What was the point of that restriction? If the soldier nominated "distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty," then should he not have been given the MoH?

For example in the Battle of Mogadishu, Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon were both awarded the MOH for their self sacrifice trying to save Michael Durant. What if there was some stupid restriction like the one that prevented Winters from a deserved MOH?

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

In history we know that Puritans came to the colonies in 1620 to avoid England. However the Colonies became an English entity a few decades later, and eventually, the Colonialists got their independence again.

It seems to have defaulted to a generic term actually referencing North and South America, which is non typical when looking at other countries.

Ever since middle school I have been interested in the cultural group and concept of the "Sinosphere." Especially in regards to languages, I constantly found myself amazed and entranced by Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and their similarities both linguistically and culturally. I am no means an expert but just really enjoy studying the Sinosphere as a hobby, and I have become especially interested in exploring the boundaries of the Sinosphere. I feel like only recently has Vietnam entered the spotlight and started to truly be recognized as a member of the Sinosphere and many would probably be satisfied to leave it there: but I learned there was one more really significant language around today that built its writing system off of Chinese characters and likely learned from Chinese culture; and that is Zhuang.

For those that don't know the Zhuang people number about 18 million or so, and they mostly reside in the Chinese region of Guangxi. Guangxi actually being an autonomous region dedicated specifically to the Zhuang people. The Zhuang language historically (And still in many informal instances) was written using Sawndip. Sawndip being a set of characters very similar to Chinese characters (and in many cases borrowing Chinese characters directly).

I bring this topic up largely because I can't hardly find ANY information on the Zhuang language or people in studies of the Sinosphere and its components. I think a lot of this can be chalked up to the fact that the Zhuang people are quite unheard of outside of China, and that they don't have their own country or government to promote their culture and language. They may be deemed an insignificant minority with no affect on anyone or anything, or maybe people just assume they are Chinese and nothing more, But I think the Zhuang people and culture are a very worthy topic of discussion. How do the Zhuang people fit into the overall Sinosphere? What makes them similar to the other Sinosphere cultures and what makes them distinct? And is there enough similarities that we should start seriously including the Zhuang culture into our studies of the Sinosphere on equal footing with Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and China?

I would love to hear your all's takes on the matter and what more information we can pool together, thank you!

So, I remember learning about this method for a split second in the 6th grade (1997). I can only remember that the chest was cut, exposing the sternum and lungs(?). Causing extreme pain and certain death if the victim took a deep breath. Essentially, it was death by strangulation while being tied up. I can't remember why I thought about it, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

It is well known that more than 20,000 loyalists ended up fleeing the new republic in the aftermath of the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Many of these loyalists ended going to places like Canada or even England. What is less well known are stories about the loyalists who ended up staying or returning and taking up allegiance to the young Republic. Tench Coxe and William Samuel Johnson were both prominent loyalists who ended being becoming big proponents of for the Federalist argument for the constitution. Tench Cox ended up becoming a member of the Annapolis convention in 1786 and was elected to the Confederation Congress in 1789 during the transition period from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. William Samuel Johnson was a loyalist who ended up getting elected to the Constitutional Convention and thereby becoming one of the signers of the constitution. He also wrote many letters in support of the Federalist cause during Pennsylvania's ratification period.

Another prominent loyalist was Henry Cruger a Tory from New York, who was elected to Parliament twice during the Revolution as MP for Bristol. He later returned New York and ran and won a term in the New York State Senate as a member of the Federalist Party of New York. There are others like Peter Van Schaack and James Rivington, a Tory Newspaper publisher, who would return to printing in the late 1780's to push for New York's Ratification of the Constitution.

So why did many former loyalists end up supporting the Federalists and the newly proposed and deeply republican constitution?

Hi there! I’m brand new to Reddit and I’m looking for some direction.

I have to old pictures of relatives from (what I guess is) Bohemia in the early 1900/late 1800. The problem is, I don’t know much about these photos (what war they’ll likely from etc). No one is my family seems to know/remember. Thus, I’m turning to Reddit for some possible theories and answers!

Where would be the best place to post these pictures to get more information?

Thanks!

How was their life,was it hard work or were they free to do what they wanted? How did someone become Knight or some highly ranked person?

Are there any historical documents about the Exodus from Egypt’s point of view? Surely the mass revolt and expulsion of an entire enslaved populace would have been of some historical importance to the ancient Egyptian people. Can someone describe what their thoughts on this matter was and how it possibly affected their civilization?

Was it in any way similar to how the Empire State Building was built (from what I understand, it had few regulations)?

I was only wondering because I hear a lot how fewer regulations meant that buildings were erected quite fast whereas nowadays it takes years. I'm not pro-low regulations, just wondering if that would factor into how these things were made in days.

What was the quality of these ships as well? Were they more prone to sinking, defects?

Some old maps from ancient Rome are only showing parts of Europe and northern Africa but as far as I know there was some trade going on between Rome and the Han Empire.

So,... What did the Romans really knew about eastern civilizations (or even american civilizations) and how did it affect their view on the world?

Kindly reccomend a book for me (beginner) to educate myself about the Rise and Fall of Soviet Union and Communism.

I've found it strange that this class carried larger guns, what was the reason for them carrying cruiser caliber guns?

It is a very broad question I know, but in the end all European powers had about the same limit of speed in their communication (the speed of their ships) right (ignoring fleet size)? I've read about situations in which e.g. countries had skirmishes because one or both factions weren't aware their governments signed a peace treaty.

Would there be some kind of time frame in which skirmishes would still be allowed under a peace treaty because one couldn't expect e.g. a captain of a ship to know about it? And assuming yes, how did this 'clause' look like? Were there certain conditions written down?

Additionally: Has a country ever misused this 'buffer' period (attacking under the guise of 'I didn't know peace was declared')?

Again, sorry if the question is too broad. If it's not good enough I'll delete the post. It's just that I've read about tons of treaties, but it's never clarified how exactly they deal with the relatively slow communications.

I know they supported it before the war (Edit: he'll they went to war for it), and argued it wasn't THAT bad afterwards for a long time. However, was the war ever seen on Biblical terms - perhaps that the destruction of the South by the perceived cruelties of Sherman's March was a punishment from God for the sin of slavery? Did they ever admit to slavery being a moral wrong, after the war, basically, even if they viewed slavemasters as good people and abolitionists as bad?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Related question: would it have been common during the time when hysteria was a thing to tell your friends "I'm going to the doctor to be treated for hysteria," or was it more private?