Trying this one again.

A couple of days I was invited to an evangelical summer party just to find out that I was invited by Creationists. They tried to convince me that the theory of evolution is bogus and that even Darwin himself revoked it shortly before he died. I was pretty shocked by these claims and tried to find something on it but the only sources I could find were written by creationists themselves.

Thanks in advance and please excuse my bad english.

So I was looking at Arizona the other day and got to wondering about the small strip of land, belonging to Mexico, that separates it from the Gulf of California.

Ports are a big deal. Wars have been (and continue to be) fought over them. So why did the United States not seize that portion of land in the Mexican-American War? I understand the State of Arizona was created after the war but I would have thought ocean access would be desirable and that land taken anyway.

Something that occurred to me while thinking about ancient warfare is simple foot pain. I can't walk more than maybe two miles without my feet beginning to hurt. Granted, I live a very different life in almost every way from these people.

Did their lifestyle make marching over very long distances a non-issue? And in an extreme case, what might become of a soldier who injured his leg or foot on a march?

Saving Private Ryan, which is probably the most renowned depiction of D-Day, seems to present it as a maelstrom where men are cut down seemingly arbitrarily. Is that what combat was like? Were a soldier's chances of survival equally arbitrary once they plunged into the water and began to make their way towards the pillboxes?

Additionally, is this the case throughout history? Superior numbers and weaponry aside, is it a game of a chance who lives and who dies in military conflict?

It seems to me that, not unlike today, pistols (handguns) are/were largely meant for killing other people. A rifle seems to be far more all-purpose, and I'd guess that would be the gun of choice for most people. The one exception I can think of is law enforcement. There's former military, but civil war-era soldiers didn't carry pistols unless they were officers, right? Finally, there's simply the expense, both for the weapon as well as possibly different ammo.

It seems the image of cowboys running around with six-shooters and having showdowns is more a thing of the movies than actual history.

Hi,

I'm reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism" , by Hannah Arendt , and on the preface there's a quote in German.

I was wondering if anyone could help my understand what it's saying.

"Weder dem Vergangen aheimfallen noch dem Zukünftigen. Es kommt darauf an, ganz gegenwärtig zu sein." - Karl Jaspers

Does anyone know what it means ? Google translate doesn't make a lot of sense out of it to me ( something about past and future ).

I've heard ashigaru-grade armor compared to munitions-grade European armor in the same time period. Europe at the time had a very advanced armor industry that has been talked about in several AskHistorians answers on the FAQ. Can someone give me an overview of Sengoku Jidai Japan's armor industry?

I was wondering if there has ever been laws, rules, or regulations about use of psychoactive drugs on civilians or soldiers? (amphetamines for the nazi soldiers comes to mind, but i have no idea how "legal" it was or how the world reacted to it)

I mean I get the timing. The elation and patriotic pride stemming from a historic victory against an arch nemesis is definitely helpful for creating a new nation and instilling its citizens with a sense of national unity. And Versailles is certainly flashy enough to fit the bill. But still, founding a new nation on foreign soil seems weird.

So what where the political reasons for doing it this way? Who came up with the idea? And for how long was it in the works? Was it always the plan, provided the war went well, or was it a spur of the moment thing, relatively speaking. Where there any prominent dissenting voices?

Hi,

This is my first question here. I guess I want to know what makes up the identity of a Wiccan and how this identity was established. How did pre-Christian pagan beliefs fall under a relatively narrow umbrella of Wicca or witch?

Also, historically, were there any large and devout movements of Wiccan-ism (or its predecessors) where there was a codifying of beliefs or where the religion became more standardized (and/or respected)?

I was discussing this point with a friend and realised my understanding of the history here was just plain bad. Suffrage wasn't extended to the general US white male population until considerably after the revolution.

How was it that the argument of "no taxation without representation" could be convincingly made to revolutionaries when most of them would still not be able to vote or determine leadership?

The first elections in the US had only a tiny fraction of the wealthy elite vote in them. Was the understanding of "representation" different then? It seems hypocritical to me.

The UK government offered the idea of "virtual representation" which displeased colonists - is this not the same principle that US elections then proceeded to operate on, with the gentry "virtually representing" the commoners?

Thanks.

It struck me that Anatolia and Middle East had a remarkably little population (at least in early-modern period and beyond) before experiencing high population growth in 20th century . For example in early 19th century, the population of entire Ottoman Empire, from Balkans to Egypt, was comparable to France or Germany (which had been ravaged in Thirty Years’ War, as far as I know), despite having a much bigger landmass, even if barren areas such as deserts are excluded. Iran wasn’t any better either, it had significantly less population compared to Italy or Spain. Why was that? Invasions? Disease? Agriculture? Was it like that since antiquity, or say since early middle ages? Any good books or articles etc. that are specifically about this subject (or that have a good deal of information about this subject) ?