It is well known that Shaw fell in this famous battle with the 54th Massachusetts in the American Civil War and was buried with his men. However, I can't find the source to save my life, but I remember reading or seeing somewhere that before he was buried his body was paraded around in the fort, I presume in a mocking way, before he was "buried with his niggers" according the commanding Confederate officer Haygood. Does anyone know more about this?

I believe it may have been spoken of in Ken Burn's The Civil War documentary but not sure if it was there and, if so, where that info was sourced from.

Were there any round shields used, from the 12th century onward? Were there any handheld, as opposed to strap and carry, type shields present in that period? By whom? Thank you for your time.

I've been reading a bit into 14th century England and have come by the three estates, those who work, those who pray and those who fight. When reading into those who fight, I understood that they were composed of the nobility, Lords, knights, etc. But I imagine that armies weren't composed solely of nobility, but also some common soldier or what have you, and the nobles perhaps lead them during battle? So where do these guys fit? I'm guessing those who work couldn't be drafted to become soldiers, then maybe these soldiers don't fit the three estates, like merchants, but then, what did they do in times of peace?

Thank you in advance!

In many cases, it seems like the Italian army performed much more poorly than anticipated. Specifically, the Greco-Italian War saw them fail to make headway against an outnumbered and poorly equipped opponent, and Operation Compass was a spectacular disaster for the Italians. What explains this? Alternatively, is this narrative of Italian incompetence incorrect/overblown?

There is internal and external evidence that the Bible comes from other sources. Whether the repetitions (Moses and the rock) or known other versions (Noah story). Do we have anything similar for either of Homer's epics. I know we have evidence that something Troy like existed and there were probably some sort of wars. But I was thinking even more about all those Odysseus stories, the Sirens and Cyclops and Circe and the pigs. These seems like they could have been independent stories that were pulled together.

[deleted]

First off, sorry if it's not called a battle, but basically if I had just won a battle at a full coliseum, what could I expect to be doing that night? Would I go out and party and be treated like a celebrity, or would people just have been entertained by someone doing their job and I go on with business as usual?

We talked about this in passing in class, and im getting conflicting information online, was the early feminist movement really willing to throw blacks under the bus?

In my Latin class, there is a passage that we translated in which one of the characters writes a letter to another. The character wrote her delight that she got a reply to her previous letter in a week. The teacher explained that mail could vary wildly in delivery times for the same route, and that sometimes a person would arrive before the letter they sent to notify the other person of their arrival. Is this true? The story is set around 79-80 CE, which might make a difference.

When I say successful I'm referring to the development of technology, philosophy, science, economics, politics, architecture, engineering, influence on the world as a whole, and impact on modern society.

I'm confused as to why regions that faced the harshest conditions seems to have created societies that were successful in many of these areas, at least based on how it's settled today. Wouldn't societies with longer growing seasons, more natural resources, and less fatal winters be in an advantageous position?

Did the money come from his family? Was he independently wealthy? I known the economy was very different back then but I don't know enough about it, or him to understand. Buying what he did at 22, today seems incredible to me.

As in, what led to the UK not joining in 1967 but joining in 73? What was the national mood around this in the first place? What were people expecting the advantages to be? What sort of questions were debated around the referendum of 1975? Were there national splits between the four nations like we've seen this week?

To my knowledge, the Jews were pushed from Palestine in the first century CE, under Roman occupation. What happened when Rome began to collapse a few hundred years later? Did Palestine remain firmly under foreign control until the twentieth century?

Again, to my knowledge, the first sincere effort at returning to the Levant began in the 19th century. Why did it take so long? Since Rome was the power that initiated the diaspora, I might imagine that Rome's collapse (or its loss of foreign territory) could have spurred a migration back to the Levant.

Were other powers occupying portions of Palestine during the middle ages not amenable to the Jews' return (e.g., Byzantines, Persians, Arabs)?

As a related question, didn't the Jews displaced by the first diaspora (in Babylon) return to Israel after the conquest of Cyrus the Great? What makes the first diaspora (and its return) different from the second?