The word "just" originates from "justice", but when used as an adverb, it means something different (but similar) to its adjective counterpart.

When did "just" become used as an adverb in American English?

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe "just" is typically used as an adverb in British English.)

There's numerous scenes in the movie where he talks with or acts friendly toward Confederate prisoners - first with the Tennessee private from Archer's brigade ("fightin' for our rats", "see ya in hell Billy Yank") and then on Little Round Top with a captured Alabama captain (who asks for water). For as comparatively little focus as he had in the movie this seems like a lot of fraternization with the enemy for a commissioned officer like him, did he really do this or is this fabricated?

I always had a hard time wrapping my head around this concept in college- all religious text and writings from the Wicca religion were distorted during the crusades. All. Nothing exists. Not a single book or written word. This being said- how can modern day Wiccan's exist if they don't have a guide or religious text?

I understand that realism is not the be all and end all of art (and I find traditional Japanese art quite beautiful) but it's striking that we have realistic portraits of European monarchs going back to Tudor times, and none of Japanese figures until very recently.

(I asked this a few months ago and never got a response so I'm hoping to have more luck this time).

For example, the capital of New York is Albany, not NYC. The capital of Illinois is Springfield, not Chicago. The capital of California is Sacramento, not LA. The capital of Florida is Tallahassee, not Miami. The capital of Louisiana is Baton Rouge, not New Orleans. The capital of Maryland is Annapolis, not Baltimore. The capital of Washington is Olympia, not Seattle. Looking at the list of state capitals on Wiki, it seems some states - Arizona, Georgia, Massachusetts - do buck this trend, but most state capitals seem not to be the largest cities in the state.

Is it just historical - were these places more significant when they were picked as capital? Or was there some policy of trying to separate the bases of economic and political power in their states?

Asking again as I didn't get any responses the first time around.

I feel like, due to the negative opinion of them both then and now, their trials may not have been exactly fair. It seems like the "Guilty" verdict was in place before the trials even began.

This question applies to trials immediately after Nazi Germany's loss in WWII (Nuremberg, for example) and modern-day Nazi trials.

It's very common to read about a state failing because of lack of funds due to poor, inefficient taxation laws and I'm curious about the past systems which were utilized and the progression from that to more efficient/modern methods.

I recall that many states subcontracted tax collection to tax farmers who paid for the privilege of collection in a pre-assessed region given an estimated value. But as urbanization increased, how did census takers account for city dwellers who owned little land but more fluid property?

In addition, when comparing subcontracted tax farmers to tax collectors appointed by a state official, which produced higher revenue to the treasury?

Thanks for your time. Also if this answer has been answered before in another post I apologize in advance.

I often read about how certain archaeological sites are important because they are the first evidence of a tribe/clan burying its dead.

Why is this so significant?

I can't recall where I received this notion, it was connected to an argument along the lines of "Europeans only started viewing other societies as inferior once they started winning wars against them."

Were they just commonly told as stories? And how long had these stories circulated amongst the Arabs? Do they originate with Jewish Arabs telling stories to their neighbors or with Christian Arabs?

Were there Jewish proselytizing attempts amongst the Arabs?

Other than Lincoln, I suppose. Or is that what all this 'modern history' talk is referring to?

In the US, if you ask for tea, you will more likely receive iced tea, unless otherwise specified. The region appears to be unique in this regard, and I would like to know the cultural reasons as to why this is.

If so, by how much and why? For the English and French, if possible.

(Posted this a few days ago, but didn't get too many answers. Hope I'll get a few hits! :) )

I was curious, in the Middle Ages in terms of warfare,armies and more. I have a lot of questions, so hope a few people can help! First off, starting a war. Would Army A send a message saying "We're fighting"to Army B, or simply charge into their lands in a blitz attack to catch their enemy off guard? What were some reasons for war, aside from gold, succession or land(or were those the only ones)?

What percentage of the population would be culled for the armies? Were older veterans ever called in for their experience? Or did they only ever expect and choose young men to fight? Were numbers the main thing that the lords wanted(even if the men were old or young, as numbers were the most important thing for victory)or was training and armour just as important?

Were the population given helmets or even light armour?(Full plate being heavy, things like chainmail or something being lighter)? How about weapons, like footmen provided with spears and swords? Or were they expected to grab up or make their own? What kind of training were they provided with? Were they taught battle maneuvers if they were just commoners, like a shield wall or anything? Or was Army B just telling them "Heres a stick. Stab that fully armoured knight!" Were the commoners expected to come in and train for a few days with someone from their lords castle, or were they trained in the years before, were they just tossed into combat unprepared except for knowing hack and slash?

How many common people would be involved depending on the lands? How many knights? Did the common people or knights ever say "I don't like this cause for your war with the other kingdom Lord A" or "King B, this is a bad reason to fight!" Or "You're evil!" or "I don't want to go!" Would this be treason?

Did the invading army of A ever engage in looting, plundering, murder or rape of commoners from B or vice versa? Was there a reason for it, or was it just cruelty because they had the lord or kings backing and "to the victors go the spoils"? Did the ruling person just turn a blind eye to it because these were their fighters? Or did they punish those who abused their power?

Were battles just about crashing against each other until one side was all(or mostly)dead? Or was it a big tangle of fighting people? Did archers ever shoot into the mass of people(example: "We have reserves"from "Braveheart".) Or did cavalry fight first, then footmen and archers joined in, etc;? How did a leader make commands to all his different men across his army?

Would soldiers ever attempt to capture commanders, knights or people in a position of power from the other side of the battle? Or was it easier to kill them to make Army B lose heart and run away? If common people/footmen surrendered, would the other side take them prisoner? Or execute them because they couldn't handle feeding them?

If one of Army A's lords died and his troops ran away from the battle, would they be considered outlaws or traitors and executed? Or would they join up with another of Army A's lords and fight on his side?

Were mercenaries ever used to fight in armies? Or were they considered untrustworthy or ill trained?

Bonus question!: Were knights only ever made by a king? Who were people who could knight them? Would people ever be knighted even if they hadn't completed being a squire or been a knight in the first place(like for saving their lord, etc;)Was it only lords or a king who could raise them to power?

Thanks in advance!

The Wikipedia article glosses over this completely for some reason. I'd assume that drugging American citizens against their will would be highly illegal, and later trying to destroy all records of this would also be illegal, right?

We all know the story of the two brothers successfully flying their creation in 1903. What did they do with this afterwards, though? Did they know the significance of their invention, and if so, did they try to convince corporations/governments of it? And how was it that it went from there to being used by militaries on the other side of the globe only a decade later?