[deleted]

I know slaves frequently traveled with their masters, and some even went to free states on occasion. If a slave had been in or close to a free state, could they have run across the state line and been declared free as soon as the Civil War was declared? Or were state lines still relatively porous in terms of re-capturing run-aways even after the war started?

I've seen a lot of portrayals of soldiers of the Red Army as savages that raped and pillaged wherever they went on the Eastern Front during WW2. Was this fairly common as portrayals in film and literature seem to suggest? How many Red Army soldiers took part in these acts? What was the attitude towards these actions that was held by soldiers in the Red Army that did not participate in these acts? What I never understood was that other than in Berlin and in Germany following the capitulation of Nazi Germany, who would the victims be?? It would make sense if they were invaders, and raped and pillaged, as "barbaric" invaders often do, but the Eastern Front took place in the USSR, and the Red Army was the military of the USSR, so did they commit these atrocities against their own people?

For example, the Aztecs claimed that the Teotihuacanos were their common ancestors, and adopted the ruins of Teotihuacan into their cultural heritage. Did any of the Meso-American civilizations co-opt the Maya?

[deleted]

As long as I remember, whenever a pro sports team won a championship they have gone to the White House to meet with the President. What team was the first team to do so? And why did they do it?

As a European I do not know much about the American Civil War. We had about 1 page talking about it. We were basically thought: South seceded to keep their slaves because they were vital to their economy. Then the Union attacked them to free the slaves and reunify the USA. And that it was one of the first modern wars, foreshadowing the first World War.

But I often hear on the internet, especially from Southeners, that the South was justified in seceding from the Union and that the Union attacked them first. And that they were essentially the ""good"" guys.

How much truth is there to this?

Was Abu Bakr elected caliph without full participation of the sahabah of early Islam? Are there any hadith that prove which one had the better claim? How do Shia Muslims interpret Muslim history given how some view Abu Bakr and those after him as usurpers–like is it all being done wrong? Etc...

Thanks so much for attempting to answer even some of these questions–I really appreciate it!! =)

I did some research after seeing both sides argue over whether President Trump was correct in saying "Korea was once part of China" and I keep seeing a bunch of links on vassal states. I'm having trouble understanding it, or finding a reliable source, so I'm hoping someone here might already know?

While reading up on Hamilton, the Broadway play, I found a quote by Shane White criticizing it:

"Attempting to get away from the Great Men story of the founding fathers, these scholars have incorporated ordinary people, African-Americans, Native Americans and women and placed the whole half-century in the broader contexts of the Atlantic World. In this more inclusive and nuanced telling of the republic's creation, Hamilton plays a cameo rather than leading role."

Can someone point me to a source on this new understanding of the am American Revolution? Is there a book based on this new interpretation?

[deleted]

What I mean to say is, was there a new French design during Napoleon's wars that would be seen as revolutionary to the contemporary English?

Or rather, what were the differences between a top of the line English vessel and a French one in the early 1800's?

A major theme of the story is how in-tune a driver had to be with their car to stay ahead of the inevitable breakdowns, and the struggles the migrants faced getting to California without having to abandon their vehicles. Was car technology at the time simply too primitive for a long trip, or was it just the quality of the card that migrants could afford/that were available in the Midwest?

I'm just about to finish secondary school (highschool) and I'm really thinking about my future career. I'm hoping to study history and English in college next year and I would really like to eventually become a history professor. Is this a good idea? I will happily work relentlessly and my history teacher has even mentioned to me before that she sees me as a professor in future but I just want to know is this an achievable/likely goal? Thanks :)

I am a farmer in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany in 1860. Do I have any meaningful concept of citizenship? Is there even such a thing as citizenship? What does that entail? Does a citizen have any rights or responsibilities not given to an alien? Do I have some kind of identity document that identifies me as a citizen (or a subject)? Or is it generally assumed that if I'm there I owe allegiance to the Duke?

As a followup, through the magic of the internet, now it's 1865 and I'm King Vittorio Emanuele. How do I decide who gets citizenship in my newly united Italy? I know the Civil Code of 1865 lays out the rules for children born in Italy becoming citizens, but what about the adults? How do I, as King, choose which people physically present in country--or born on the peninsula but currently living abroad--get Italian citizenship?

I'm listening to the History of English podcast right now and would love to learn more about Beowulf.

Is there a recommended annotated edition? Maybe even a side-by-side one with the original?

I saw that there's a translation by Tolkien. How is this regarded by today's scholars?

Is it simply a matter of geography and space? As an American I know little about New Zealand's history, and if its colonization was significantly different from other arms of the British Empire, I'd like to know as well.

Reading about the history of Indo-China from the time that France started to turn it into a colony (around 1887?), I was wondering when that area of Asia separated into the countries that we know today. Were Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia always countries or were they created after French Indo-China fell apart?

What was it that possessed figures such as Charlemagne to think that their empire being divided into tiny portions would somehow be a good idea?