This really got me thinking. If the South was less united than the North, would that constitute one of the reasons it lost the Civil War?

I've been studying Lafayette and one of the books I'm reading, Lafayette in the Somewhat United States by Sarah Vowel, covers a lot of his legacy in American Revolutionary history. I know he was a major figure in the French revolution, but I'm curious how he is remembered there.

Are his actions in America a core part of the Lafayette legacy? In addition, how are his role in the early stages of the French revolution and his later actions in the uprisings against the Bourbon monarchy viewed in the greater context of the French Republic?

Most of the books I've found focus mostly on his legacy in the United States.

That's it I guess.

I am immensely interested in reading his work on Wall Street and the Bolsheviks, Nazis. How good of a source is he considered?

I'm watching some old reruns of MASH, and in one episode in season 4, they refer to some enemies as "terrorists." That lead me to wonder when the term "terrorist" started to enter our lexicon. I didn't think I've ever seen anything related to the Korean War labeled as "terrorism" so I didn't know if that was a semi-common term at the time of the war or if it may be an anachronism to the show or not. Thanks in advance

[deleted]

I'm watching an episode of Doctor Who and it shows a few Roman soldiers that are played by black actors. At first I thought, "are they even trying to have any accuracy at all" but then I realized that Rome had territory in North Africa so I suppose someone from there could have volunteered for the Legion. Are there known cases of black men fighting for Rome?

As far back I can remember (early 90s), the news reporting industry in all its mediums has been painted as leftist or liberal. How far back in the past does this characterization of the press extend?

Someone tell that the Nazi Germany offered like 13 peace treaties to the allies but were rejected by the "Zionists". I asked him if he has something to corroborate that information but it did not give me anything, I do not believe in that things of "Zionists" , but I have the doubt if that of the "peace treaties" was real.

[deleted]

I've found a lot written about Egyptian and Assyrian women. It doesn't seem like anyone has written about Elamite, Hittite, and Mycenaean queens, though. How much do we know about queens in these places, and what did they do all day? Were they powerful like Egyptian queens or mostly kept out of sight?

I want to be careful how I phrase this question, so please know that I mean to cause no offence. I'm curious to know how Germany- probably West more than East as they were not dealing with the problem of Soviet occupation to the same extent, but I may be wrong- dealt with the preceding years of The Third Reich and The Holocaust. I cannot begin to imagine how the German people were affected by the second world war. And yet it could be argued that they are the leading country in the world right now, and seems to be a stable, progressive country that has been able to address its still-relatively-recent past. Were there any academics, for example, who led the way in how the following generations were educated about what had occurred? Are there any books about this subject? How does modern Germany address this topic when it is necessary, and what is the general consensus of what they have learned about preventing such a thing happening again, and how it happened? Apologies again if any of what I have said has come across as insensitive. I am intrigued to learn more, especially if there are any prominent individuals involved in this process that I could learn more about.

Theirs a story in the bible about Jesus and an adulterous women who was spared from stoning. In the laws the Jews were following, a women committing adultery would be stoned. Romans didn't really care about that in their society. So were the Pharisees able to do this law on Roman soil or practice any of their laws there or would it be stopped?

The mid-late 15th century when plate was flourishing seems to be the era where many people take the popular image of the knight. And it seems that the era had a great variety in the options or aesthetics for different pieces of armor. So the question is, once I decide on who is going to make my armor, how much say do I actually have in the final result?

Would there be a long meeting discussing, say, whether I want an Armet or a Sallet? Or pointed sabatons instead of squared ones? Or fully articulated gauntlets vs armored mittens? Or one Pauldren bugger than the other? How would I even be able to decide? Would there be a book of drawings of the things he can make, or would he maybe have examples on display of the styles he can use?

Or would each armorer basically have their own signature style with just a little variation? And if I wanted something different I'd simply have to contract a different person who makes armor closer to my preferences?