It seems that the Consulate didn't have any glaring issues that required the transition into an Empire. Are there any plausible explanations for what drove Napoleon to take this course? Was it for longevity? Was it a ploy to legitimize himself in the eyes of other European powers? Or was it simply his lust for power?

All I can find is that he adopted Islam and ended up becoming the governor of Syria in the Ottoman Empire after being exiled after the 1848 Hungarian revolution. Throughout reading history this apparently isn't an uncommon occurrence, for a diplomat or a military leader to wind up in Ottoman hands and either enjoy a comfortable life in government (Bem) or live a fairly comfortable existence in quasi-exile... How was this received in the Empire, if it was even considered something to worry about?

How could someone like József Bem, a Polish general who spoke zero Arabic (not to mention Turkish) but converted to Islam, end up a governor in the Ottoman Empire? Do we know the circumstance behind his ascension?

Which Europeans are most similar to the Pre-Neolithic Hunters and Gatherers? The Neolithic Farmers? The Yamnaya Steppe people who came during the Bronze Age?

I'm reading many contradictory things. For the PNHaG, I'm reading that the Scandinavians are from one study, but another study pegs the Basques as the most similar to the PNHaG.

When it comes to the NFs, I'm reading contradictory things as well. I heard that the Basques are very similar to them and so are the Sicilians/Sardianians.

Finally, for the Yamnaya Steppe people who spread IE languages, they contributed significantly to the Scandinavians who became fair skinned and tall because of their admixture. However, I've also read that the Scandinavians branch of IE is Germanic, and this language family is actually a bad example of an IE language. There are many hunter-gatherer words here. For example, "shrimp" is not an IE word, and it is from a pre-IE source. So on one hand, the Scandinavians have a high component of Yamnaya genes, but at the same time, they speak the least IE language as well. Please clarify this contradiction.

[deleted]

I've come across a few posts from progressive leaning sites lately that claim that northern Europe (British Isles, German states, northern France, etc.) in the Middle Ages was very diverse with sizable populations of people with sub-Saharan African descent, and that our perceptions of medieval Europe as racially homogeneous comes from racist casting practices in film. Understanding that our modern racial constructs wouldn't necessarily apply to medieval Europe, how accurate are these claims? I could imagine there being a few sub-Saharan Africans in major trading cities but not necessarily diversity comparable to today.

[deleted]

When I read about Venetian history, there are plenty of references to aristocratic families being the ones who dominated the Republic's government through monopolizing election as Doge and membership of the various legislative bodies. However, were these families noble in the sense of an hereditary nobility with a codified elevated social position familiar from the rest of Europe? Or were they families that consistently dominated the city through inherited wealth and the accompanying political power? Basically, I'm interested to know if references to Venetian nobility mean an actual hereditary nobility or are simply a shorthand for a wealthy aristocracy.

Thanks in advance!

I am doing a paper on the LVT during WWII, and have run into a bit of an issue. I have one source that says that the amount of LVT's produced was less than 10,000, while Wikipedia (I know, not a real source) said that 8,000 of only just the LVT-4s were made. That leads me to really want a second source to collaborate the numbers I am using.

Is there a US database, or records that would state how many of each variation were produced by the end of the war?

It seems that the right of each nation is typically blaming Quislings, a feckless military or a liberal party for international outcomes or lost wars.

I mean upon discovery and shortly after.

Given that Ireland is an island (and Northern Ireland a portion thereof), and one that was, in theory, controlled by the power the IRA was fighting for most of the time it was fighting it, it seems like it would be harder to smuggle weapons and explosives into the country than it would be in other parts of the world.

Further, the UK, especially after the Firearms Act of 1968, had relatively restrictive firearms laws, in which a local constable would need to approve any permit for firearms sales to citizens. And explosives have been heavily regulated and controlled for all private individuals for a long time.

How, then, did the IRA consistently arm itself such that it was able to keep apace of the British military?

I decided that an academic career in history isn’t for me, but I’d still love to do research and write as a hobby. What kind of history or historical linguistics journals would publish someone without a lot of credentials?

According to the concept of the imperial presidency, before the new deal the office of the president of the US was far less important than it is today. With the rare exceptions of Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, few presidents before FDR truly expanded the office or used it as bully pulpit. Most presidents were insignificant (often one-termers), and unlike today the office wasn't particularly desirable as it had none of the powers to set domestic agendas, control domestic programs, and lead the free world. The founders had put congress first in the constitution and set out its role far more accurately intending that that branch would lead government, only giving the president executive and military roles because they knew the father figure washington would be the first to take the role.

If this is true, then why did anybody want to be president before 1930, surely it would be seen as an irrelevant largely powerless office within a political career? yet three of the founding fathers after Washington sought the presidency as the best place to pursue their political energies, and throughout the 19th century there was vicious competition to be president, with expansive campaigns and political parties orienting their entire conventions around the quadrennial race, and often having long contested conventions to decide a nominee. Essentially, if being president was less important being in congress why did so many men, seek the presidency before the 1930s

During the Caesarian Civil War, Pompey raised legions in the east. Leaving aside auxiliary forces, only Roman citizens could fight in the legions. From where and whom would these legions have been raised?

I remember in the Mithridatic uprising thousands of Roman citizens / colonists were slaughtered. Would the legions have been raised from such people; Roman citizens living in the East?