Does it have to do with Ozawa v. US which ruled that Japanese were ineligible for citizenship, and therefore 20 years later, these people weren't citizens and didn't have the same rights as citizens... meanwhile, most German-Americans had been here for centuries and were considered citizens?

I'm not well informed of the topic and have heard that the Ottoman cannons brought the walls down. I have also heard that someone forgot to close a gate that led inside the city. Which​ one is true?

Recently, I got into a discussion with a friend who asserted that Robert E. Lee, later in his life, was a progressive figure who worked to shift the South away from it's roots in slavery. In particular, he used this quote:

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."

Does anyone know the context this remark was intended in? Was it a genuine sentiment, and did Lee favor Reconstruction after the war? Did he go so far as to work against racist forces in the South?

I saw that there were several threads about Lee in the past, but none seemed to address this question specifically. Was Lee in earnest about reconciliation not just with the North, but with the changing tide of attitudes about slavery?

Title says it all. Thank you all.

Good day,

I'm quite fascinated by the Shimazu and Chosokabe clans. However from the sources I've read for the Sengoku Jidai period most of the mentions of these clans seems to be when Hideyoshi invaded and subjugated the daimyo and afterwards.

So I guess I've got a few questions about the Shimazu and Chosokabe:

1. During the time of Oda Nobunaga, what were the Shimazu and Chosokabe doing on their islands?

2. Did the Shimazu and Choskabe also have ambitions to unite all of Japan?

3. How did the mainland daimyo feel about the Shimazu and Chosokabe? Were they viewed as a threat to their campaigns, or possible allies during the time of Oda Nobunaga?

Thank you very much for your answer. If you could also recommend some further reading (in English please), that'd be great. I'd love to learn more.

Thanks again.

I know they only relatively recently started being televised (Clinton), but I can't seem to find much about when they started to happen on the daily.

I'm reading "Warriors of God" by James Reston, which tells the story of the third crusade. He writes at length of Richard the Lionheart's homosexuality. He goes beyond mere innuendo (ie he preferred the company of men), and tells of incidents such as Richard publicly undergoing purification rituals and repenting his former homosexuality while in Sicily en route to the Holy Land. Unfortunately, the author does not use in-text documentation, so I can't find out where this information came from. What are the sources from which we've learned of Richard's homosexuality? How widely known was his orientation?

They controlled on of the largest land empires in history and conquered the Islamic world and destroyed the Song dynasty in China, and conquered all the way to Eastern Europe. What stopped them from taking India as well?

From what I understand, officers were spread out through the regimental line of battle to direct troops movement: the Colonel on the front left, the Lt. Col on the right, and the Major in the middle. The junior officers would be spread behind ranks of their respective companies, helping to dress the companies of the regiment.

The sergeants were positioned behind the lines of their platoons to assist their men in fighting and to encourage the men to continue to fight. The sergeants rarely stood in the line of battle. From their vantage point, the sergeants would be tasked with urging the men forward.

Are there any accounts of sergeants killing fleeing "cowards?"

It would seem to me that given the closeness of NCOs to their men, none would consciously shoot them in the back.

Edit:

Thinking more about this question, in the film Gods and Generals, I've never read the novel, Buster Kilrain says to Tom Chamberlain, "A sergeant doesn't fire his weapon until the men in front of him are killed, and then only if he wants to show off." I don't know the validity of this concept, but it would follow that a sergeant needs his weapon available at all times in case he needs to shoot a private or corporal in front of him.

Further though, it is a possibility given that a regiment is in two lines in a battle formation, a sergeant at the rear cannot effectively fire at the enemy. The sergeant, as seen in some Civil War films, can assist with broken weapons and move men around to fill gaps. Given that a squad at the time was 12 men (1 corporal, his privates, the corporal's sergeant and the sergeant's privates), there is actually quite a bit of micromanagement necessary. The corporals, according to Hardee's Field Manual I believe, would stand in front, with the junior enlisted standing between the corporals and the sergeants.

As a pretty solid European war buff I have recently felt the obligation to learn my fair share about the Pacific war. I always understood the gist of the war but it has been very enlightening and very fun to read about all of the lesser known stories!

Anyways one old assumption I had has not been challenged by any of these books: that most of the land combat consisted of amphibious operations and jungle fighting. You don't really see much street fighting like in the cities of France or Germany.

Was that really the case or is it just a bias in what I'm reading? If it is true that there was not much urban combat, why is this true? Was it just lack of major cities or is there another reason.

From the really small amount of Latin & Italian I know (Very small amount, mostly from youtube educational videos - not italian/latin focused) i know that monte means mountain and negro is black.

In Greek, my mother tongue, its called "Μαυροβούνιο" which means exactly the same thing.

So how did it get its name?

[deleted]

Hi /r/AskHistorians ,

I would like to know more about the last Tsar of Russia. It seems like there are two narratives going on when talking about Nicholas II.

The first version portrays him as this drunken tyrant and ruthless ruler, the other one as a guy who is just way over his head and more concerned with the health of his children than the state of his country.

Could you shed some light on this for me or suggest a book where I can learn more about him?

Thanks!

Why did the religion become so gentile centric by the time of Paul (~50 AD)?

What was Paul's beef with circumcision?

What role did Christianity have in the Jewish-Roman wars?