Would the past outbreaks in Rome have been common knowledge for chroniclers or doctors?
1 Answers 2016-08-30
I have to do an essay on a topic in history for my Leaving Cert (RSR) and I want to do it on what happened to people convicted of Gross Indecency in the 1800s-1900s, so basically what happened to you if you were gay while it was illegal
I need three sources (books, documentaries etc) and I'm finding it hard to get my hands on them - does anyone know any? It's a subject people don't like to talk about it so the sources are quite limited...
I'm especially interested in Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing and what exactly happened in their 'treatment' and trials etc
Any help greatly appreciated
1 Answers 2016-08-30
Where nobody seems to like either candidate
1 Answers 2016-08-30
It seems that nations like Poland and Romania saw a marked increase of those people are religious, but nations like the Czech Republic and Estonia have seen the opposite trend. Why?
1 Answers 2016-08-30
I get the megalomania and war mongering, but Alexander the Great had similar goals and he's remembered as a great leader and brilliant military strategist, while I've heard Napoleon referred to as the anti Christ. From what I've learned he was a fairly good leader and tolerant of his people. Is it British propaganda of the time or was he truly evil? If so, why do people like Alexander get remembered in a much more favorable light?
1 Answers 2016-08-30
I'm interested in conflicts between the different branches of the American government, and I remembered that Chief Justice John Marshall had ruled against Andrew Jackson's interest in dealing with the Native American populations. But upon further inspection, it appears that despite the famous quote of Jackson's "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!", the ruling in Worcester v Georgia was actually not a constitutional crisis.
Marshall ruled that Georgia did not have the ability to regulate the interaction between Georgians and the Cherokee; instead, only the federal government has that power. Georgia did comply and they freed Worcester eventually, but Andrew Jackson had nothing to enforce, since the federal government was not a party to the suit. Moreover, the Indian Removal Act had already been passed, and so the removal of native tribes on the Trail of Tears continued, with Marshall's ruling changing nothing.
I'm looking for other court cases where the president actually defied the courts. The only one I could find was Ex parte Merryman.
Apparently Chief Justice Taney (in the capacity of a Circuit Court) ruled that Lincoln had unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. The court ruled only Congress has that power. Lincoln and the US Army defied the order, but eventually Congress sort of said retroactively that it was ok. Some other courts agreed with Taney, but Lincoln ignored them and kept arresting people without trial. Eventually Congress suspended Habeas Corpus officially in 1863, two years after the case.
Interestingly, in United States v Nixon, Nixon did comply and turn over the tapes, despite it likely ending his presidency. If he had refused, would the court have been able to hold him in contempt and had U.S. Marshals arrest him? Technically, they are part of the Justice Department, so that seems like it might not even work, as the Justice Department answers to the president.
Are there any other cases where the president just ignored the courts, especially the Supreme Court?
Edit: added link I forgot to Indian Removal Act.
3 Answers 2016-08-30
I was reading about Vasili Arkhipov, who reportedly was one of three officers aboard B-59 whose consent was required to launch a nuclear strike against the US ships on the surface (who were dropping "signaling" depth charges near the Soviet sub, trying to force it to surface). Supposedly Arkhipov was the only officer who refused to approve the strike.
My actual question is "How true is this story, in both the events themselves and their potential consequences? How close did we come to all-out nuclear war?" However, that's very vague and difficult to qualify, so instead I have a few specific questions for clarification:
In laymen's terms, what were the US ships actually doing and what were they hoping to accomplish? What are signaling depth charges, and what were they hoping to gain by making the Soviet sub surface? Was such an action considered overtly hostile? Are there any other incidents of either Allied or Soviet ships employing such tactics elsewhere during the Cold War?
Were there any barriers beside's Arkhipov's approval to the launch? Had he agreed, would the nuclear torpedo have been immediately launched, or were further authorizations of some kind required?
What kind of yield are we talking about with a nuclear torpedo? Would this have wiped out the entire group of ships, or merely taken out whichever one it was aimed it?
Is there any indication of what the US's response would've been to such a strike? Was the plan always 'a single hostile strike is grounds for a full retaliatory deployment', or was the protocol more nuanced?
Are there any mitigating pieces of context necessary to understand just how close this incident came to triggering WW3? For example, is it possible the other two officers knew that Arkhipov wouldn't approve, and suggested the strike for personal/political reasons (knowing it wouldn't occur)?
2 Answers 2016-08-30
It's the most sacred symbol to Muslims. I wonder if during the long Crusades anyone ever attempt to defile it? What was the meaning of Kaaba to outsiders?
2 Answers 2016-08-30
I guess it would depend on country, but what kind of medical exemptions were in place for people conscripted during WWII? I can't imagine people being sent to the front line if they weren't combat effective. Was there a line drawn to determine who was healthy enough?
1 Answers 2016-08-30
1 Answers 2016-08-30
Last Semester, I was in a class where we discussed the French Revolution and the end of the French Monarchy. It came up that there is a surviving member of the House of Bourbon: Louis Alphonse. Obviously he will never actually be restored to the French Throne, but the fact that he even exists is interesting.
Does a similar situation exist for the House of Romanov in Russia? I know all of the main members were killed during the Communist Revolution. Are there any distant relations that could, under the laws of succession that existed at the time, have a legitimate claim to the Russian Throne?
Edit: I understand this question is pretty straightforward and simple. I came here because I find the complexities of European Royal Families incredibly hard to follow. I should have placed more emphasis on the second part of the question: Are any of the surviving members of the house legitimate heirs under the laws of succession? I am also adding another question to add to complexity: Did the Romanovs who survived the revolution ever have significant support from loyalists during the Soviet Era?
1 Answers 2016-08-30
I checked the books and resources list but didn't see anything there. I'd love to read the "definitive" biography of each US President.
Edit: If such a list doesn't already exist, I'd be happy to take your recommendations for excellent presidential biographies, and create a list based off of that.
3 Answers 2016-08-30
I seem to recall seeing pictures on Wikipedia years ago that purported to be stone smoking pipes from ancient Britain or something. Now I can find nothing on this. Presumably because it contradicts the general idea that smoking wasn't "discovered" until the New World.
People smoked hemp in ancient times whether you believe it or not, so why is the evidence all hush-hush??
1 Answers 2016-08-30
Hi everyone,
I'm an avid writer of history stories, have always loved studying history, and even go on alternate history websites, but for years I have been enamored with the Inka. I'm just amazed at how quickly they rose (and how quickly they fell, goddamnit Atawallpa) and was wondering just what the Andes looked like before Pachakutiq began his conquests. I've found [this wikipedia map] (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Late-intermediate-peru.png) but I feel like there are more detailed resources out there.
Now, while a map is good and all, if anyone has more information (or a good website or book) about the Andes just before and during the rise of the Inka, I'd be more than happy to attain that.
Like I said, I absolutely love the Inka, how their government functioned, how they managed to do everything they did, etc., and I just want to learn about the political situation in the Andes that Pachakutiq subjugated.
Thank you so much to anyone who has more information.
And if this is the wrong sort of thing to post here, I'm sorry. I read the rules and didn't find anything that prohibited this sort of question, but I'm (in)famous for missing things, so if I should ask this somewhere else please tell me!
1 Answers 2016-08-30
For Roman military historians, I know it's impossible to really say, but what is your assessment of Sertorius like in comparison to other great Roman generals like Caesar, Africanus, Pompey and Belisarius?
What do you think separated him from those aforementioned generals? And how much of a thread was he to the Roman Republic?
Lastly, is it true he actually fought alongside his troops like Adrian Goldsworthy indicates in 'In the Name of Rome'? Apparently he lost an eye in the process of doing so, any comment?
Thanks.
1 Answers 2016-08-30
I read about this on wikipedia but would like to know more:
Did they integrate in Japanese society?
How did the Japanese react to them?
What kind of work would they do before and after the war?
1 Answers 2016-08-30
1 Answers 2016-08-30
Consider this thread a gathering place for stories about historical beliefs in magic, attempts to use it, attempts to restrict it, the relationship between beliefs in "real" magic and practices of human-created illusion.
5 Answers 2016-08-30
Wasn't sure where to put this, so if Mods feel there's a more appropriate sub please advise. This is less a question on historical facts, the process of recording history, or the study of what's been written - more so a direct question to real historians on how a historian's mind works.
Background: Two events occurred to make me wonder how the brain of a historian works. The first were the great posts that can be found in the history subs regarding the POV of Soviets/Germans of WW2; the second was listening to The Band's "The Night They Drove Ole Dixie Down".
My question is this: when real historians encounter humans in their studies what happens? Is it void of emotion and rooted in facts, logic,etc? Or do feelings become involved such as empathy?
I ask because I put myself in the shoes of historians, humbly admitting I still couldn't figure out what they would do in that situation. I can see how a historian would have to feel some type of emotion - anger, love, empathy, etc. - as history involves humans just like us. On the other hand, I can absolutely see how a historian would want to distance themselves from feelings to be able to have an unbiased view that can be recorded for future generations. Seems like a possible conflict, and an interesting question to ask a historian.
Apologies in advance if I didn't convey this or word this eloquently. Also, please do direct me to a better sub if this is not the appropriate avenue of discussion.
Edit: Also, the historic Ferguson Riots came to mind as well, which might be a different question for a different post titled "Do historians remove themselves (emotions, political views, etc.) when recording recent/current events?"
1 Answers 2016-08-30
2 Answers 2016-08-30
Some lines in the Iliad refer to just 'god', small 'g'. Who are they referring to? Was there another 'god' other than the Gods of Mt Olympus in ancient Greece? Was 'god' a concept, rather than deity?
Edit: For clarity, here is an example, Book 9: No, not even if god himself promised to cast off my old age, to make me young
1 Answers 2016-08-30
