I've noticed a lot of large comments written by the historians don't include a TL;DR. I know historians put a lot of work in to writing up their work to help us non-historians, but at the same time, many of us don't have the time to read it all, whether we're at work or school, it's easier to have a small TL;DR paragraph than a 5 paragraph page.

Since Friday is Trafalgar Day and the week's theme is disability, I'd like to ask how the loss of an arm and an eye affected Nelson - was he advanced enough in rank at that point that his injuries did not stop him commanding ships? Was his career at all endangered by these wounds?

Howdy historians - got a quick question for y'all. So the phrase "Dios y Tejas" (God and Texas) has been my little life's motto for years. To my understanding, when Stephen F Austin wrote to the Mexican government declaring texas' independence he ended the letter with the phrase "Dios y Tejas", instead of the traditionally accepted "Coahuila y Tejas", an action that was considered by many treasonous and helped spark our revolution. However, in all my research I have been able to find very little evidence to back the story up - was everything I taught a lie? Any insight y'all could offer would be greatly appreciated!

Edit: Ok, so I may have found the answer on my own. According to the Convention of 1833 Wikipedia page (a fountain of academic truth)

A cholera epidemic reached Mexico City within days of Austin's arrival, prompting Congress to adjourn before Austin could present the convention's resolutions. As he waited for the legislature to reconvene, Austin heard rumors that Texians were planning a third convention to unilaterally declare themselves a separate state. Although Austin was also frustrated at the lack of progress, he disapproved of this drastic proposal. In an attempt to quell the more radical groups in Texas, in October Austin sent a letter to the ayuntamiento in San Antonio de Béxar in which he proposed that all of the ayuntamientosshould jointly form a new state government. In what could be interpreted as an inflammatory gesture, Austin signed his letter "dios y Tejas" ("God and Texas") rather than the traditional Mexican closing "dios y libertad" ("God and liberty"). A few days after he had posted the letter, the immigration ban was repealed, assuaging one of the major Texian concerns. Austin had expected the letter to reach his friend Músquiz, who could be trusted to determine when or if it was appropriate to publicly disclose its contents. The letter arrived while Músquiz was out of town and was read by an unsympathetic ayuntamiento member. At this member's request, the ayuntamiento of San Antonio de Béxar forwarded the letter to state officials in Coahuila. The new governor, Francisco Vidaurri y Villaseñor, ordered Austin's arrest. Austin was arrested in December on suspicion of treason. He was imprisoned through all of 1834 and remained in Mexico City on bond until July 1835.

Hi,

I am german and currently do my A-Levels in Berlin. My Politics teacher gave us many different periods of german history, I got the period of Charlemagne from 768 to 919. My homework is to write and do a presentation about the consitution, reign and wars during that time. We are not allowed to use internet sources, so I searched on the homepage of my local library for sources, but couldnt find anything about this period. We are also allowed to use newspaper and magazine articles about this period, not only books.

So I am asking you to help me finding good sources about this perioud, preferably in german (though english is okay too) and preferably about the 3 topics Constitution, Reign and Wars during that time. It would also help greatly if the book would be easy to read, not something only a historian would understand^^

I hope this is the right place to ask, but I have a question about using regnal numbers in writing. In a chapter about Henry III, for example, should I include the III every time I refer to him, or is it acceptable to use Henry III the first time, and then just Henry afterwards?

I was familiar with the battle, in passing, but have read a bit more about it over the past week, given that it's the 950th anniversary - and this is one thing that has stuck out to me. I can understand a modern battle - with two sides digging in, exchanging fire - lasting for a full day, but I have trouble envisioning two medieval armies going at it for 9 hours of hand to hand combat.

I've heard that after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople the exodus from the city into Europe fueled the European Renaissance through the introduction of Greek texts and thought. We're these people in Constantinople utilizing renaissance level thought and technology prior to the exodus. If so What did this advancement look like?

It seems that on the top it looks like the Thirty Years War was just about religious differences but it seems to have a lot of political undertones. Would you say it was political or religious? Are there any people of the time that really exemplify one way or the other? edit: this is a homework question

I thought that was something classical people did?

[deleted]

I heard all kind of tin foil hat stories regarding this issue. It is clear that trains are more fuel efficient, but yet trucks are the main method of freight transportation. I heard oil companies had something to do with this, lobbying for trucks (in the form of roads) in order to get profit. Is there any truth in these stories? Was there at some point in american history a push, propelled by oil companies, for the government to construct roads instead of railroads? This kind of information is extremely elusive, I couldn't find anything. Any help will be much appreciated.

I don't know much about them during WW1, just that they were in the army. Are there documents available for viewing of recruited soldiers in the Austro Hungarian army during WW1, such as recruitment papers? They were both Croats, if that helps in any way.

Also though for the Greek colonies I can understand it not making the Greeks a world power like the romans at the middle stages or the Ptolemai or Seleucid states. Carthage and it's Phoenician colonies did become a rather large power. Was the difference just the inherent indepence and separate city states of the Greeks?

I just saw a map of the spread of chess across Eurasia showing that it reached Japan as Shogi in 1200 and Portugal and the Netherlands a few centuries later. Were these versions sufficiently similar to be mutually recognizable once those countries began trade with Japan? Were there other cultural similarities happening on opposite sides of the continent?

I was looking through pictures of jazz musicians and photos of many of them (Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Count Basie) look very discolored and badly taken compared to contemporary black and white photos of African Americans, whereas old pictures of white people look fine. Is there a reason for this?