I tried looking this up myself but I don't know where to start, other than Wikipedia's half-paragraph mention of her being tutored at home by Marion Crawford.

Growing up I had always heard stories of Mexican oppression and the need for an Anglo-white Republic that better represented the population. It's not hard for me to look back at some of the fanciful ideas that informed a mythology dominated by the events of the Alamo and leadership of Sam Houston.

I generally steer clear of the mythologies I grew up with- but I recently had someone ask my about this particular event and I realized I didn't have a good answer for them. Cursory research into trusted sources puts the emphasis for Texas secession clearly on the issue of slavery and the potential economic prosperity provided by the expansion of cotton industries and settlement/investment provided by the southern plantocracy.

But I'm curious how this actually weighs out- what historians of North America or early (is this considered early?) US history might have to say. Certainly interested in secondary source recommendations if there is anything noteworthy.

So why did Texas secede from Mexico?

It is often cited that the number of casualties in ancient battles happened once one side gained the upper hand and the other turned tail and fled. Then typically the calvary would ride in and decimate the retreating soldiers.

What I don't understand is why the calvary was able to inflict such lopsided casualties. Wouldn't an infantryman be able to severely wound the horses and slow down the calvary's advance?

What sort of war did famine cause in settled societies?

We've see staggering amounts of refugees as a result of recent day wars and conflicts. I can't remember being taught of refugees that resulted from the wars that took place on American soil. Did those result in the migration of refugees, or did the population put up with the conflict?

I'm writing a low fantasy book set just before the industrial revolution. I was writing a scene and realized that paper to go boxes might not be a thing.

When did to go boxes become a thing? Did people just eat next a street vendor and give the bowl back afterwards?

I'm not really sure how to properly phrase this, but as I read about ancient wars (specifically those that the Roman empire was involved in) it seems that civilizations existing at that time simply declared war on a whim, and were quite open about their territorial aspirations. Is my perspective correct, or am I misinterpreting what I've read?

[deleted]

I was reading about how worried the Union was that the British and the British Navy in particular would support the South at the outbreak of the Civil War. I was wondering how much Amercian naval strength had grown since the war of 1812. Would the USN have been able to challenge the Royal Navy?

Hitler kept meddling with strategy of the war:

switching luftwafte targets in britain away from RAF military targets to civilian carpet bombing, and the V2 rockets.

telling the panzers in army group center to halt their advance to Moscow to wait for the slow infantry

Not allowing the stalingrad army to retreat when they still could on their own.

telling army group centre's tanks to go north and south

telling the Uboats to leave the british shipping lanes to head to north africa and arctic (letting Britain's imports balloon)

Were the military commanders fanatical in their devotion to hitler despite repated meddling and bad decisions? or were many of them saying this guys clueless and we're gonna lose the war because of him (but keeping silent obviously)?

[deleted]

Obviously these are works of fiction but I've always wondered to what extent the trope was inspired by real discoveries.

As is commonly known, the Rosetta stone provided the key to solving the mystery of hieroglyphics. Was there a comparable key for Cuneiform? When was it first deciphered?

How were African-American war veterans received when they returned home during the years of segregation? Were they seen in a less favourable light than their fellow white soldiers, or were the fact they were veterans work in their favour?

I ask this as someone who's writing what you might call an historical fiction. one of the scenes involve the main characters taking part in tavern banter with eachother about their sexual exploits like men are fond of doing, but as i wrote it i realized something- This is conservative, catholic medieval Europe. Would young men even have had the opportunity to "hook up" with women their age like modern men do?

Virginity before marriage was still considered a social virtue and i imagine the low status of women compared to their male counterparts would have made the unsanctioned socializing to even meet difficult. Is there any historical evidence that young people from the time period where so often secretly rustling each others jimmies that the hypothetical banter i'm writing on could have actually taken place?,or was it so taboo that only social outcasts like prostitutes could engage in it?