I'm asking because my father owns a farm and has an old tombstone that his family acquired when they bought the farm in 1950's. He didn't know the history of it, but he thinks that it belonged to one of the settlers from the 1850's. Any information would be appreciated.

When reading "The Secret of Hittites" I would always laugh when Suppiluliuma was mentioned, his name sounds like what you would call a fat bunny, or I don't know, it's just hard to take seriously.

Now I wonder if the Hittites would think the same, because all their other kings had names that sound unusual to me but that I can respect, like Hatusil, Mursil, or Labarna.

So, what did hittites think of that name?

I've been looking around a bit, but I haven't been able to find much information. Was it an independent city state, or was it under the influence of another Italian nation? If it was independent, how strong was it?

In literature and other media from the 1940s and 1950s, I often see the terms "atomic energy" or "atomic warfare" which sound mildly archaic in American English. By the 1960s and 1970s, it seems like "nuclear energy" or "nuclear warfare" had become the preferred terms for these concepts.

Hi everyone, i have to do an essay about the national and international impacts of the Russian revolution. I was doing some research and im kind of confused, were there two revolutions? One in February and another in October? Also about the impacts, before doing some research i thought that the revolution made the country worse but i read that the country thrived after 1917, so whats happened? And i couldn't find or think about the international impacts. Could someone clarify me and point me a good and site/article with this informations?

(i.e., as having certain desirable virtues such as bravery, honesty, simplicity, etc. as a counterpoint to their "barbarian" lifestyle)

I don't ask this just to be speculative. The reason I ask is because many indicators of authoritarian overthrow were present in his case, and he acted like a sort of North American caudillo. He was a famous and popular war hero general with military support. He ran as a populist, and was really the only major 'people's candidate' in US history up to that point. Arguably the first true political party in US history was built around him, and it was well organized and powerful for several years before the Whigs organized in opposition. After the election of 1824 and the 'corrupt bargain' between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay put JQA in the presidency, he had a legitimate political grievance, having won the plurality of both the popular vote and the electoral college. Yet he waited four years to run again. He ignored the rule of law in major ways, both as general in his invasion of Florida and as president when he ignored a Supreme Court decision. Even then, the strongest move congress made was to censure him. He brought in a spoils system for federal jobs, which essentially meant anyone who could be hired to a federal position had to play by the rules of his administration and party. Many of his critics at the time accused him of behaving like a king. In many other young constitutional democracies, a general such as himself would have staged a coup after the corrupt bargain, or after becoming president would have kept running in sham elections every four years claiming the country needed him, ignoring checks on his power and continuing to erode constitutionality. So why didn't he do this? Did he believe in the system overall and truly not want to overthrow it? Did he simply not want the job indefinitely? Would the rest of the Democratic Party have gone against him? Would the people actually realize what he was doing if he stayed in office and then rise up against him? Was free press an effective check?

[deleted]

I 've heard that the celebration has changed a lot from what it used to be because it was meshed withCatholicism and other cultures add their own things to it, but how was it celebrated during the time of the Aztecs?

I've read that he was far friendlier to Jews earlier in his carreer. What happened to cause him to compose such charming tracts as "On the Jews and their Lies"? Did it coincide with his more radical departure from the Church in the early 1520s (I think?)?

With the potential opening of the JFK files in a week, it's been reported that despite the congressional act that was passed in 1992 authorizing the files for release in 25 years, that over the past few months a large number of documents have already been released to the public.

I'm confused about how this was possible? I thought that the point of the Act was to completely seal those records prior to October 26, 2017, making it flatly illegal to release them at any point prior. But if I'm understanding correctly, the National Archives has been releasing them under its own authority. How would they be able to do that, between the 1992 Act itself, and resistance from various government agencies? Haven't they violated the law, or is there something I'm missing?

To what an extent did Islam incorporate Jewish practices and beliefs?

I’ve been wondering about the information sent from Britain to the US under the Tizard Mission in 1940 which included information about an atom bomb.

What role did the information in the Tizard mission play in the manhattan project and the overall development of atomic weapons development during WW2? I can't find much about how important that atomic information was. Was it the starting point of the manahattan project, or more of a side note? Did the US already have that knowledge?

From most history you get the impression the US powered through atomic research all on its own, so I’d like to know how much of it was based on British knowledge and research.

I’m surprised this doesn’t get much coverage. If it was crucial knowledge it’s certainly not reflected in most history sources.

[deleted]

In the Asterix books a lot of the Gauls have names ending in -ix. Is this just an humorous homage to Vercingetorix or did the Gaulish people actually use -ix a lot in names?

I have an essay do next week on the grievances in the Declaration of Independence and how they were addressed in the Constitution. One of the grievances I chose was "For depriving us [in many cases] of the benefits of trial by jury" but I can not find a scholarly journal entry or refrence to a time this actually happened. Is there an example you guys know of?