I understand that India's relations with Europe go further back, but one would imagine that with the distance and the lack of direct contact, there would be a dearth of translators or even sources to study from. Further, India's got tons of languages, and the Portuguese landed in Calicut, which speaks Malayalam which is nothing close to Hindi or any other 'popular' Indian language. Was it trial and error, or were there some brilliant individuals involved?

That is to say, if certain events unfold that revealed that our entire administration was corrupted and found guilty of treason or other felonies, Could the USA hold a special election for the Presidency and has this sort of event ever happened before? I know the line of succession exists, but if the line is so corrupt, would a special election be possible and has it ever happened before? I googled, didn't find anything.

I'm truly confused by why any military commander would find the practices employed during the Napoleonic Era of warfare to be rational. Why cluster in a line, walk up to the enemy's line of fire, and just take turns shooting each other dead?

Why not spread out, flank, break formation and use the natural environment for cover to skirmish/employ some Guerilla tactics?

Would gas be used only during major attacks or could one expect it during some random shelling?

Was gas used in trench raids?

I was looking at voting patterns for this class I had and always wondered why states like Minnesota was largely Republican until JFK in 1960, and why some like the north-eastern states largely Republican until roughly 1988, and why some west coast states largely Republican until 1988. It was something that always bugged me.

I know for the south, it had something to deal with an ideological shift, but was there other reasons why they were mostly democrat until LBJ came?

Growing up I remember hearing way more about the German submarine attacks in he Atlantic but over the last few years I've learned about how prolific American anti shipping submarine attacks were against the Japanese. Which was more successful in terms of ships sunk and which was more prolific in terms of number of subs?

[deleted]

I'm writing about marxisme for my history and philosophy class and I don't understand the goals of Marxisme. The only thing I understand as there clear goal was to end capitalism and make a society with no classes. Was there more to it than that? What was their plan if they could shape a country like they wanted?

Are there any sort of legal protections afforded to myself or family or am I largely at the mercy of the local Baron (count, graf, lord, comte etc.)? Are there civil, church or royal authorities I can appeal to or are my only two options to take up arms or to do nothing. How does gender effect this as well if I'm a woman do I have any legal options or am I to solely rely on male family members or a husband to seek this out on my behalf?

Pius III died less than a month after his elevation. All that I can find, after browsing on Wikipedia, is that "this selection can be seen as a compromise between factions, Borgia and della Rovere, picking a frail cardinal with long experience in the Roman Curia over the kin of either Sixtus IV or Alexander VI."

That is all well and good, but there is a difference between picking a compromise candidate and one who, it seems, was literally on his deathbed before he was even elected, seeing as he couldn't attend the vote...

As a possible followup question: Did such a thing ever happen in earlier wars?

Greetings,

I have been researching certain things related to north Africa during antiquity and I have stumbled upon a number of statements stating that the currently rather small Lake Chad was really enormous a long time ago.

Does anyone have any further information or even maps to visualize this change?

What I found is very vague and shallow with information, any help would be welcome.

I thank you in advance,

Fellow

[deleted]

By the mid 19th century, American slave holders had clear examples, in British Carrabean colonies, like Jamaica, and in the former Spanish colonies, that a plantation economy could function without slavery. Free blacks could still be denied all political power, or legal rights, and be used as inexpensive/disposable labour. So, why would Southern elites risk everything in a bid for secession?

Reading up on various ancient trade networks it appears that on balance the networks were "many small hops to cover large distances" for much of world history until approximately the renaissance (approx 1200-1400 in China and Europe)

So the small finds of Alpine stone in Stone Age Britain, or the Roman coins found in China would have passed through several different caravans or traders before finding their resting place

How accurate is that assessment?

Would traders really make it all the way from say Egypt to China? Would Vikings manage to move a cargo all the way from Sweden to Byzantium? Or would they stock up or exchange goods along the way?

I'm aware the Roman empire was something of an aberration in this regard, giving the security, tools and administration to move large quantities of goods long distances around Europe for a couple of centuries.

I've tried looking this up and I have gotten nothing. It would be an interesting concept, I mean the French population generally did not like her, and it would've made for a better show in my opinion to execute them at the same time? Was there a reason for keeping her alive for so long, was there indecision as to her fate, was there a political reason behind it?

Also if this is the wrong type of question for the sub, please let me know

Estimates of the Roman losses at Teutoburg Forest are in the range of 15,000-20,000, whereas battles such as Trebia and Cannae had seen far greater casualties. However, the Romans seemed to get over those earlier defeats whereas Teutoburg Forest supposedly haunted Augustus for years and is often held responsible for the fact that the Romans never again tried to conquer Germania. What explains this divergence? Was there some kind of fundamental shift in demographics that made it harder to recover from these kinds of losses?