[deleted]

Since I'm not an American, my knowledge of their history is pretty limited. But I know that the French fought with the rebels against the British Empire in the Revolutionary War. So, when the people of France turned against the royals, how did the USA react? Who did they support?

I should add, in the age of sail*

Unless I've been lied to, swords were both less effective than other weapons and were a lot more expensive. In general, other types of weapons make sense to me, because they're either take x object and put it on the end of a stick or figure out a way to fling an object at high speeds.

I'm assuming geography had something to do with it, as to my knowledge, Native Americans People from the Americas never made swords, but it seems like they were everything on the east side of the Atlantic (or is that the west side of the Pacific?) had a sword at one point or another.

Did the Nobility and Royalty of Joseon Korea speak Chinese? I know they wrote and read and Chinese but I have no clue if they spoke it or not.

I'd like to repost this old question of mine that didn't get any answer, hoping someone knowledgeable would spot it :)

It seems to me that the field of Egyptology is dominated by North American and European scholars. Do Egyptians/Arab scholars contribute significantly to the field? Are the two communities segregated or an exchange of research does occur? How given the difference in language? And finally did the Egyptian ministry of culture try to influence the Egyptologists demographics by giving equal or privileged access to Egyptian scholars?

I can also extend my question to other near easter archeologies.

Edit: followed /u/Iphikrates' advice

This association always seemed really arbitrary to me, but it's such a pervasive relationship that I don't think most people even question it.

Because it wasn't always common knowledge that smoking tobacco is unhealthy, did nobody think about quitting until the 1960s? Would it have been weird for someone in, say, 1930 to tell their friends they were thinking about quitting?

Napoleon Bonaparte was rumored to be short. Even though this was not true, people believed it, and passed it on to other folk.

What started this rumor?

When I think of the early days of modern chess (say, the 19th century) I don't think of players from any particular country or region, just generally around the world, probably mostly European. However, somehow somewhere between its founding and the 1960s, the Soviet Union came to dominate the rest of the world, at least in my extremely sketchy grasp of chess history.

I'm especially thinking of things like the Fischer-Spassky match in 1972, which was a huge public spectacle seen by many as a sort of proxy for the Cold War itself: a lone brilliant American staring down the Soviet machine. But as far as I understand, prior to that chess was all but nonexistent in the mind of the general public in the US, and that was very much not the case in the USSR. How and why did chess become so entrenched (priveleged?) in Soviet culture? Was it that way in pre-Soviet Russia too and I just don't know about that? There doesn't seem to be anything about chess in general that might make it especially appealing to the Russian people, but on the other hand things don't typically emerge as national pastimes without some story behind them...

In many books, movies, plays, TV shows about Caesar, his naming of Octavian as his heir and legal son is often shown as a surprise to everyone and even a snub to Marc Antony. However, considering how common adoption was in Rome, combined with the fact that Octavian was Caesar's closest living male relative it seems expected that he would be his heir.

Basically what the title says.

I just read an article about Prince Henrik of Denmark refusing to be buried next to his wife the Queen because of his title.

Doing a bit of reading and read that on battleships one of the turrets was always manned by Royal Marines. Was this just because they were available manpower? Or was it an historical relic that was maintained through tradition?

In Lombard Italy, Byzantine Thema in the south were run by Katepani, while the Byzantine-held north (which dosen't seem to fall into the Thema system) was governed by an Exarch, based in Ravenna. However, when the Venetians freed themselves from the Exarch, they proclaimed their leader Dux. All these terms are making me dizzy, anyone care to break them down for me?

I remember seeing in a documentary that there were many French soldiers who opted to stay behind at Dunkirk and hold off the Germans rather than escape. How much of that is true? Thanks!

In 286 Diocletian moved the capital of the Western Roman Empire from Rome to Mediolanum. He didn't even stay there, he chose to live at Nicomedia in the east. This would indicate to me that Rome had become a much less important city than it was before. Why?

And why wasn't St Louis built at the confluence of the MS and Missouri rivers instead of 20 miles away?

Victorians are people who lived during Victoria's reign (1837-1901), and their successors were Edwardians.

The current British queen is Elizabeth II, but "Elizabethan" refers strictly to the reign of Elizabeth I.

Why is it that Britons of the 21st century and the second half of the 20th century are not Elizabethans? It can't be that the proper adjective is only allowed to apply to the first monarch of that name, because the Edwardians lived during the reign of Edward VII, and the Georgian era covered the reigns of Georges I to IV. Is it simply to do with the period being historically significant enough to be named after the monarch of the day?

I started reading this translation and reached this paragraph:

The nature of the An moved to make the universe. But now either everything that takes place comes by way of consequence or continuity; or even the chief things towards which the ruling power of the universe directs its own movement are governed by no rational principle. If this is remembered it will make thee more tranquil in many things.

...and I'm stumped. I assume it's because I don't understand the context around which this was written or maybe that it's simply poetry or most probably that I'm simply ignorant.