Pretty much everyone adopted a rifle with a rotating bolt when they switched to clip fed smokeless powder/propellant service rifles exept for Austria-Hungary with the Mannlicher rifle.

I would think the typical answer is because they weren't as developed, but as far as I know there weren't even ships so they would've been at minimum centuries away from making that kind of journey.

So why first, why did they not have ships? That's probably a pretty common question.

And second, was there ever any written accounts in the Americas of someone at least wanting to make a journey across the Atlantic?

I understand that Austria and Germany share a Germanic culture (duh), but I don't think New Zealand would accept an Australian as their leader although they have somewhat similar cultures. It also seems like Hitler would have an Austrian accent (idk because I don't understand any German), so this would definitely seem like a no-no.

The US has moved to withdraw from the UNESCO. It already had a rocky history with the organization, having withdrawn previously in 1984 claiming an anti US bias. What were these biases ?

Did the Mongols get fed by previous conquests and by the time they got to the Arabian peninsula they were just too OP?

Kind of an awkward title...but I was looking over the Library of Congress collection of negatives from the Battle of Gettysburg. In pictures of dead soldiers, there are usually no more then maybe 6 bodies shown in any shot. I would have thought that given massive casualties sustained by both sides, especially in areas like Rose Wood, McPherson's Wood, and The Slaughter Pen the fields would be littered with bodies.

Were these pictures taken so far after the battle that most of the bodies had already been removed? Was the actual death rate just lower then I'm thinking and most casualties on the field were just wounds and not deaths? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks!

What did Julius Cesar got high on?

What I mean by lighter is something like - for example - Martin Sixsmith's Russia. Basically a less detailed, but well presented version of events.

Also a follow up question: are these books worth reading?

I'm also interested in any historic fiction that you might recommend. But maybe that should be PMed; in fact honestly I'm sorry if this entire post isn't proper for the sub. I checked the sidebar FAQ, and while within the rules I saw fairly clear guidelines about hat constitutes a proper post, I'm hoping that maybe this could be just meta enough to pass and stay.

I'm currently reading up on Machiavelli and he has a great deal of praise to say about the effectiveness of these Tribune's. However, if they were just elected representatives, what stopped them from acting against the 'will of the people'?

I stumbled across this elsewhere, and have seen conflicting results on google about it.

The argument was that the 2nd Amendment was created, not entirely, but largely so that slave owners could own guns to keep slaves in line and crush any uprisings. Additionally, it was said, that the militias mentioned in the 2nd Amendment were not the state militias that fought under General George Washington, but rather the armed militias that hunted down escaped slaves.

Could you fine people provide some clarity?

We seem to know so much about the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, but very little about the early Frisians, Franks and Saxons in the post-Roman Low Countries.

To what extent can the much more extensive information about the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic peoples in post-Roman Britain also be applied to the Germanic peoples in the Low Countries, about whom we apparently have much less information?

Did they worship the same gods? Did they eat the same food? Did they speak the same language?

What actions did they take to minimize losses and help the economy?

Hello,

In the 12th chapter of his "Germania", Tacitus says, that "proditores et transfugas arboribus suspendunt, ignavos et inbelles et corpore infames caeno ac palude iniecta insuper crate mergunt."

I have often encountered alt-right folks who claim that Tacitus meant that same-sex acts were deemed to "disgrace" one's body and were punished by being thrown into a bog. As far as I know, this was also the "traditional" interpretation for quite some time to make the point that the Catholic/Christian view of (male) homosexuality was based on "natural law" and something even the "Barbarians" followed.

I always found this interpretation to be absurd, though, because the Roman Empire, Tacitus belonged to, did NOT consider same-sex acts to be something that inherently/necessarily "disgraced" one's body - so why would a historian of the Roman Empire use this wording to describe same-sex acts among the Germanic people.

So, what do modern historians think about that whole topic today?

This was the case for at least several hundred years, from the American Revolution up to Victorian times, and the Red Uniform was in use throughout the Empire. By the time of World War I the Red Coat was no longer prevalent.

I'm aware that some units of the British army still wear red when undertaking ceremonial duty, however, it is never worn in the field anymore as far as I can tell. Is it simply down to practical issues? I.e. trying not to stand out?

Even if it turned out to be mostly bunk in practice, classical civilization was nevertheless suffused with praise for the republican ideal - the heroism of Cincinnatus, the shame of Sextus, and the accomplishments of the Academy and Lyceum of Athens. How did the historians and other intellectuals of the middle ages and renaissance, charged with theoretically upholding the divine right of kings and the immutability of royal power, view that period of history? Did they think that democracy was a failed experiment that their modern civilization had moved beyond, or was there nostalgia for the glory days of the Twelve Tables? Or did they simply think that the Republic worked in its time for its own people and that the monarchic institution worked for them in theirs? How did that view change over time, if it ever did?