I was contemplating this when converting units for an engineering class and I couldn't fathom a situation during the Industrial rev. in which unit conversion didn't royally ruin things.

I've noticed a large number of civil wars throughout history, especially modern history, have lasted a very long time. Afghanistan has been in a state of civil conflict for nearly 40 years. Sudan has had two civil wars that lasted for more than 20 years. The Algerian Civil war lasted for 11 years.

The American Civil war lasted for 4 years which is a much shorter time span than 10 or 20 years. So how did the war end so quickly?

For native amercian tribes in what is modern day upstate New York, like the Mohawk, what did they eat, and what did they drink? Did they only drink water or were they able to make other types of drink?

Some context for my question.

I've recently been watching Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" and during the Truman and Eisenhower years they portray a Soviet Union that wants peaceful relations against a United States that seems power hungry and determined to insult the Soviets.

They seem to be saying that the United States was the aggressor and that most actions taken by the Soviets was simply in response to something the US had done.

How accurate is this?

DISCLAIMER: In asking my question, I am by NO means trying to suggest that the horrors of slavery were or ever could be mitigated by a sympathetic slave owner or population - the very fact that someone existed in slavery is an abomination.

After watching films like 12 Years A Slave or even Django Unchained, I'm curious as to how slaves were treated by their masters and the general white majority aside from the obvious issue of slavery. In many of these films, they are physically and verbally abused, and treated with utter contempt by nearly any single person of an upper class. If a slave says he's thirsty, he's beaten. If he makes a small mistake, he's beaten. It occurred to me that, while this could certainly be how it really was, we as a society have rightfully condemned slavery as our national shame, and as such, it seems fitting that slave owners/pro-slavery people are portrayed in the least sympathetic/most monstrous way possible.

But is this an accurate portrayal?

While it's horrific that slaves were essentially treated as machinery, would slave owners not view their slaves as investments of their own money, and therefore seen it prudent to treat them with a certain degree of care or respect (despite the obvious fact that they're enslaved)?

Abraham Lincoln has said that while he was anti-slavery, he didn't hold African Americans to be as intellectually capable as their white counterparts - it seems logical that many people might feel this way, and if that translated to slave owners, it seems that some might not feel it necessary to be aggressive and violent with their slaves.

I've also heard anecdotal cases of people like the founding fathers, like George Washington, who owned slaves but didn't necessarily treat them the way you see characters like Michael Fassbender treated slaves in 12 Years A Slave. Again - it obviously doesn't mitigate the fact that they are enslaved human beings.

TL,DR: Were slaves treated with the contempt and hatred often seen in films?

Not sure if this is the right place for this but here goes:

I've been reading some of the love elegy written by Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius and Ovid and saw that this genre of poetry existed for such a short period of time.

So this got me wondering how these types of texts came about? Does anyone know why these authors started writing this sort of poetry in the first place? And why it became so popular so quickly and for such a short period of time?

Is there much surviving material documenting life in the Aztec Empire from before the arrival of the Spanish? I'd be interested in knowing about them from a non biased source.

Hi,

Some of you guys may remember me from asking for help with understanding the battle of Cannae and whether or not Hannibal should have marched upon Rome.

I have found other books as well but unsure to whether or not they are trustworthy or not.

So far I have read /am reading

• Gregory Daly - Cannae : The experiences of battle in the second punic war

• Adrian Goldsworthy : Cannae (Fields of Battle) this is so far my favourite

• Adrian Goldsworthy : Fall of Carthage

• Robert L. O'connel : Ghost of Cannae - for some reason I am actually struggling to read through this for some reason

I have been listening to The History of Rome Podcast and this question popped in my mind. During the Punic wars it surprised me that Rome was defeated several times with huge losses and still was able to have men attack other areas of Carthage. Yet, during the late Empire, it seems to be a recurring theme that Rome (or Ravenna) was always outnumbered, or outmatched, when fighting the Goths and Huns, even after conditions arguably as existentially dire as during the Punic wars.

Didn't Haiti actually have the strength to conquer the Dominican Republic at one point?

Martin Luther's Two Kingdoms indicates that the church should not exercise government. So, why, under a Protestant conversion, did the monarch of England become the head of the church? Even if that role is only symbolic now, it is unusual to me.

I'm asking about the German Christian Democrats. As I understand it, the Italian Christian Democrats were a pro-Catholic party (?). Did the German party start the same way? When and why did it start? Was it always the moderate-right party it is now?

What did people think about it? Did normal Ottomans think it terrible, or just one of those things? What did religious authorities think about it? What did the Princes think about having to kill their brothers, and did they sometimes try to get a headstart by killing their brothers before taking the throne, to reduce competition?

Secondly, if only one son could survive, was there not a possible issue of all the heirs dying off? For example, what if one son survived but he turned out to be infertile?

Lastly, I'm sure I remember that some sons were imprisoned, rather than killed, is this correct? Why? To ensure an heir?

Did Iran provide sanctuary to Shia Afghan militant groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980's?

Brian Ghilliotti

Were the trenches of the western front continuous? (ie could you walk from the ocean to Switzerland in them?) were they continuously guarded, or did soldiers tend to populate areas near towns or where the saw the enemy had been stockpiling troops? Once an offensive broke through and took a few km of land, were new trenches built?