I'm currently researching Article 6 of the Rome Statute and looking for practical examples of the provision surrounding the prevention of births, but the databases for the ICC and Rwandan and Yugoslavia tribunals are not working for me.

Has there been an example of a genocide conviction based on the provision, or has it remained unused?

I put my fair share of time googling different word combinations but can't find an answer, help my curiosity Reddit please. 21 seems as arbitrary as 20 or 19 or 22. What were the talking points for the age 21, were there other ages considered? This could be for the time period before the 14th amendment (how did each state determine it) or for it's creation (Section 2 says twenty-one).

A lot of the early Résistance mouvement had involvement from the far-right, yet there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of a legacy left in the modern far-right. The modern french far-right has rather been built around people like Tixier-Vignancourt and, of course, Jean-Marie Le Pen that had a deep fondness for the fascistic Vichy régime, with barely a mention of this "resisting" far right. Why?

I was just wondering, if monks at a priory or some other monastic society, were allowed any contact with their families. For example, if their parents passed away, would they or could they be notified somehow? What if they had siblings who wished to come and visit them, on occasion? Would they be allowed to see them, even if just for a short time?

During that war Argentinian air force resorted to sending smaller number of planes against RN ships that allowed its air defences to operate better and provided larger degree of protection. So why didn't Argentinians use one larger raid that would overwhelm air defences and allow for better results? It doesn't seem that this was an issue of availability of planes, weapons (while Exocets were in short supply bombs don't seem to be) and pilots as they kept sending them up despite losses.

As someone who lives in New England, what happens in Georgia, Virginia or Tennessee, or the fact that they’re in the same country as me has essentially no effect on my life, and I imagine that was even more so the car back then, when travel and communication was much slower. If anything, if a person was opposed to the politics of the southern states, their exit from the union would be advantageous as they’d no longer be contributing electoral votes, congressmen and senators for “the opposite side.” In 1860 the United States was a new nation whose borders were constantly changing so I can’t imagine that there would be that strong of a nationalistic attachment to the shape of the country as it was, in the way that part of the identity of France is l’Hexagone. I understand that there were radical abolitionists throughout the country who were happy to fight and die to end slavery but these John Brown/Bleeding Kansas types were definitely a minority inspired by a particular sort of Christianity. So, minding that, was there any significant opposition to the war in the north, as in “I don’t care if the South stays or leaves, or even if I do care enough to prefer that they stay, the maintenance of the union is not something I’m willing to die for, nor is it worth my son or brother or husband or friends or neighbors dying for.”

I feel like that’s a different sort of thing than the Irish draft riots, which were more along the lines of “we just got here, this isn’t our war” nor am I talking about northerners who opposed the war because they were sympathetic to the southern cause and supported the continuation of slavery.

I was browsing Wikipedia, and saw this line from an article about opposition to conscription in Canada during WWI "Almost all French Canadians opposed conscription; they felt that they had no particular loyalty to either Britain or France".

This I found really interesting. I can understand them being indifferent to the British, but I would have thought they'd have felt more of an attachment to the French, given they shared a language and (going back a bit) the same cultural origins.

There is a weird documentary called Aether made by a channel called the blue the producer is a women called marcia ramalho. The producer basically bases it's bs on the Tartaria conspiracy theory. Can anyone dissect that garbage and prove the bs wrong?

I think it's well known what effect it had on the 1912 election. It's also perhaps common trivia that Teddy Roosevelt did better than Taft on election day. And it's at the very least searchable that Charles Fairbanks was Roosevelt's vice in his second term. But did Roosevelt's more effective candidacy in 1912 influence the platform of the Republican Party in 1916? Perhaps adopting some of his positions to try to capture some of the voters he energized?

I'm also curious about whether Roosevelt needed to be wooed to endorse Charles Evans Hughes beyond the token embrace of his running mate. Did Hughes have to court him in any way, or was Roosevelt sufficiently cowed by the disaster of 1912?

I have absolutely no idea what medieval universities were like and especially in what way they differ from modern universities. I read quite a bit about universities in the early modern period but I imagine that they were quite different before printed books became available. So roughly from 12th to 14th century.

What subjects did the students learn? How were they taught? How long did they study for and how did they graduate? Did they have to take exams? What facilities did a university provide their students with? What were job prospects like after graduation? What did the students do outside of learning?

And if you have any interesting literature regarding the topic that gives a good overview you can recommend them to me too.

Hello friends! I heard from a Vermonter that the war in question was started when the French invited many Chiefs to a discussion, and they then murdered them at the meeting place. However YouTube does not mention any of that so far as I can tell. Is there any truth to it? Thank you!

I was recently listening to the AskHistorians podcast episode about the battle, and in it, Dr Konijnendijk mentions how important these "auxiliary" troops were to the success of a hoplite phalanx. I'm a little confused, then, about why more of them weren't fielded. What is it, doctrinally, societally, or technologically, that created this situation? This inflexible heavy infantry was deemed so important despite its vulnerabilities, yet less than 10% of the troops in either force were set aside to assist/enable them or disrupt their opponents.

This especially struck me because medieval armies seem to be a far more varied affair: 1000 years later at the Battle of Callinicum, The Persians are (apparently) basically just cavalry, and their opponents seem to be a pretty mixed group of infantry and cavalry. Another 800 years on at Agincourt, the English heavy infantry, which doesn't seem so different in role to a hoplite phalanx, was really very heavily outnumbered by its archer cohort, and their French opponents are hardly lacking in ranged infantry or cavalry. But in 5th century BC Greece, everyone seems pretty well decided on the idea that men with big shields and spears is the way you do things, no archers or cavalry allowed.

What is it about Classical Greek warfare that makes hoplites so dominant in the composition of an army?

EDIT: re: "later medieval battles" I do recognise that 394BC is very much not medieval, I miss-phrased the title to suggest that.

How does the discovery of Gobekli Tepe change our interpretation of History?

Many alternative historians use Carbon dating of Gobekli Tepe to justify their notion of history.

Some other questions:

How old really Gobekli tepe is ? What exactly is the structure about or what used to happen there?

Hello, I wanted to ask a rather general question posed to Public Historians and to others with similar levels of experience. I hold a bachelor's in world history, and I had dreams of going to get my masters and work in the field of public history right after college. Covid put a stop to all of that and it has been 3 years since I've graduated college. I really would like to get back into the field of study and further my experience with jobs, volunteer work, and education. Challenge is, I have a full time job in a completely other field. It's a good job, but not my long term goal and it's time consuming. I was hoping to get advice on finding some good remote opportunities for continuing my education and experience with some flexibility, or at least networking/collaborating with professionals in the field. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.