The US and Russia (formerly USSR) have been at odds for many decades now, mainly through proxy wars though. Has there ever been an incident where US forces or Russian forces directly attacked one another? Have there been close calls or accidents? Or is it true that "not a single bullet" has been fired.

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson blames the British (and really, just the British king) for the international slave trade? Why? Wouldn't he see the Americans as just as culpable?

But then researching this question, I found out that Jefferson banned the international slave trade into Virginia in 1778, and most of the other states followed suit. The constitution prohibited banning the international slave trade for 20 years after its adoption, but then in 1807, the international slave trade was banned in a law signed by Jefferson. Why did the framers of the constitution put off banning the international slave trade, and how did that consensus to ban it develop during the intervening twenty years?

Finally, I know that the Confederate constitution also banned the international slave trade. Why was someone like Jefferson so much more willing to ban the international slave trade than to free his own slaves or abolish slavery? Why did Confederates, who were willing to fight a devastating war to protect slavery, willing to ban the international slave trade in their constitution?

My brother has a bit of an odd request: he wants a book on Roman history, but is looking for a book that goes into a belt more detail on the context surrounding the myth of Romulus and Remus and the wolf. I don't believe he's looking for the historiography of it, but more of a "what was going on at the time" kind of answer. Any input is welcome.

It seems the argument comes from the fact that private companies set out to the future colonies only for commercial/economic reasons. Therefore this somewhow makes it "accidental" that the areas in which they settled later became colonies. However when you look closer, you can see that these companies were actually given royal charters by monarchs with the goal of setting up colonies and settlements. I even read that in the case of the colony of virginia, the first official american colony by the british, the charter stated that the intent was to propagate christianity. Not sure how this makes it "accidental" whatsoever. These private companies like the british east india company, the hudsons bay company, virginia company, that were all given charters, just seemed like a different way of approaching colonization as compared to the other european superpowers. And because of the fact that every area these companies went to later became official crown colonies, it makes no sense as to how its accidental. Anyone that knows more care to explain?

I just started listening to this podcast. He seems to know a lot and is interesting to listen to. But I can't tell if he's stating facts or opinions. Are there any history experts here that can vouch for the podcast?

I figured there must have been some way, because they could travel in groups. How could they communicate without the allied navies knowing they were there?

Hey there, I was just wondering why the US stayed in Vietnam so long? I understand that guerrilla warfare prolonged the conflict but even after the US government knew this was a war we were going to lose, we still didn't leave. If we knew failure was inevitable why didn't we just leave? Kennedy and Johnson (as well as other presidents) knew this information but still decided to send more troops in and prolong the war. Why? What were we hoping to accomplish?

[deleted]

So there were all the propaganda and speeches on the line of "Be home by Christmas" on the opening of World War I. Of course, we all know how that ended up when a conflict people suspect would take months took four years.

How quickly did the soldiers realize that things weren't going as well? Were there journals that stated one day like "We'll attack the Frenchie/Krauts, we're going to drive them outta here!" then the next entry is "We're going to be here a long, long time." Or like how they envisioned the war to be and then when the shelling started, their vision on their prospects took a complete turn no matter how optimistic the overall situation was?

[deleted]

Or any pre-modern time or place will do really, as the question is pretty universal.

After doing quite a bit of research on the Aggregate program and Mittelwerk there is one recurring factoid. That Von Braun's rocket are, supposedly, the only (mass-produced) weapon that was fired in anger to have killed more in it's construction than military usage.

Despite going through several books on war economics I couldn't find anything contradicting this. But history being so vast, and humans being so war-happy, I was wondering on the veracity of this claim.

So, is it true?

I'm not European (Asian). In the little that was taught to me of the Cold War, the USSR, the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba, the Iron Curtain etc. inevitably get mentioned. But of the dictatorships in Francoist Spain and the Estado Novo little gets mentioned. In fact, it wasn't mentioned at all. I had to read it up independently.

On reading it up though, I was struck by the fact that there were two countries so close to Western Europe that the governments of the U.K. And France seemed to care so little about. Mexico also, once seemed to ally with the USSR, and yet I've read little in popular history regarding the US's wariness of Mexico, like they were worried about Cuba. Although I'd love to read up about America and Mexico's relations through the Cold War, to keep my question specific and get detailed answers, I'll restrict it to Western Europe

Is there a particular reason for this? It doesn't make much strategic sense to me. Was there some assurance that these states would not succumb to the USSR sphere of influence? Were they perhaps so weak militarily and economically that they were simply ignored? Or were the governments so involved in reconstruction and decolonization that they just had to take a back seat?

Thanks in advance. You guys are the best.

Prima Nocta also called Droit du seigneur (/ˈdrɑː də seɪˈnjɜːr/; French pronunciation: ​[dʁwa dy sɛɲœʁ]) ("lord's right"), also known as ius primae noctis (/ʒʌs ˈpraɪmiː ˈnɒktᵻs/; Latin pronunciation: [ju:s ˈpri:mae̯ 'nɔktɪs]) ("right of the first night"), refers to a supposed legal right in medieval Europe, and elsewhere, allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women (the "wedding night" detail is specific to some variants). There is no evidence of the right being exercised in medieval Europe, and all known references to it are from later time periods.

In 1527, Scottish historian Hector Boece wrote that the right had existed in Scotland until abolished by Malcolm III.[6] William Blackstone mentioned the custom in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), echoing Boece's claim.

I am a geography major specialising in Southeast Asia, and was quite drawn to Anderson's "last wave" theorisation for the development of Southeast Asian nation states. Within my university which specialises in Southeast Asia, Imagined Communities is the point from which any understanding of nationalism or political geography is orientated towards.

What do historians think about that book - from other similar threads I get the feeling that any academics not specialising in history (of the top of my head:Jared Diamond, Chomsky, David Harvey) often leave giant holes in their theories. So I am curious: What do historians think of Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities?

I'm British, so as was my GG-Grandfather. And I put 'machine gunner' in inverted commas as that's the only bit of information I got from my source - nothing on any battalion/campaigns etc., though he would have been in the European theatre; not the Ottoman lines.

• What challenges would he have faced on a daily basis?

• What sort of uniform would he have used?

• What sort of machinery and armaments would he have been commissioned with?

• Who would have been his closest friends in the trenches and what were their roles?

I'd just love as much detail as possible really about this role in the army, just so I can put myself in his shoes during that time.

Thanks in advance for any response.

Besides Wikipedia or online sources, what are some books I could read about the subject? Or movies/documentaries I could watch? I've always been fascinated by the American Civil War and after reading "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara, I'd love to learn as much as I can.