like where did they most recently have control of the government with politicians on their side. Are there parts of the south today with pro KKK people in public office.

To what extent is this statement true?

As a bonus, how have American attitudes towards the second amendment changed during the last 4 decades in the U.S. Historical timeline?

In North America or Europe.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Knew of the existence of the* not to the. Sorry. Genuinely curious, as both civilizations were relatively large.

also, what are some good books about this subject?

EDIT: when I mean special, I am reffering to this from the wikipedia page, what does it actually mean? : "...is one of the world's oldest religions, "combining a cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique... among the major religions of the world"

When reading books on Ottoman history, such as the Ottoman Centuries, I see the authors always characterize Suleiman as a laudable monarch, piling praises for how he led the Ottomans during the peak of its power.

However, when actually reading about his feats, I don't find Suleiman to be, in anyway, more than just a good monarch. There is nothing about him, in my opinion, that would make him any better than his predecessors. His campaign against Austria is a prime example. He was also quite vain, killed the most capable son he had, and was controlled by his lover Roxelana.

Maybe this is because I have not gone past the superficial part of Ottoman history. But what did Suleiman do that would qualify him as an amazing conqueror and an exceptional humanist, as many would claim?

Hello!

As well as wanting to know this information simply for my own edification, I'm also currently in the process of writing a fantasy novel. I'm trying to write some battle scenes, but I'm finding my lack of knowledge of the mechanics of warfare to be a major hindrance. From scavenging around the internet I've been able to form a decent mental picture of how the actual battle might have looked around both late antiquity and the early medieval periods. However, what I'm struggling to understand is the before and after.

Most portrayals of battles in these periods will, before the battle, feature the two armies lined up facing each other, ready to fight. How accurate was this? If accurate, how did the two armies know exactly when to show up to a certain location ready? If you were the side being invaded, how much warning time could you expect to have before the advancing army approached?

On the other end, it's my understanding that most battles would have ended when one side either broke rank and fled or surrendered. If they fled, would have they had time to gather their supplies? Or would have they had to abandon everything? (That seems like it would be a major problem to suddenly have an entire force without any supplies...) Would the advancing armies have followed them in their retreat? If so, what happened to their camp? Would they have had to go back to get their supplies? Or is there something I'm completely misunderstanding about the way armies moved?

Thanks for all your help everyone!

Considering that Italy switched sides...

Would Germany have gone to war if Russia didn't mobilise and/or Serbia initially reject the ultimatum?

Would France have gone to war if Germany didn't declare war on France and attack first?

Would Britain have gone to war if Belgium was not attacked?

I don't want to make these what if questions. I just want to know what was planned. Were there treaty clauses that gave these powers a way out? Did they have recorded internal discussion or planning saying they were or weren't going to enter the war?

The passage reads:

But after they had been away for longer than the agreed time, and Corobius had no provisions left, a Samian ship sailing for Egypt, whose captain was Colaeus, was driven off her course to Platea, where the Samians heard the whole story from Corobius and left him provisions for a year; they then put out to sea from the island and would have sailed to Egypt, but an easterly wind drove them from their course, and did not abate until they had passed through the Pillars of Heracles and came providentially to Tartessus. Now this was at that time an untapped market; hence, the Samians, of all the Greeks whom we know with certainty, brought back from it the greatest profit on their wares except Sostratus of Aegina, son of Laodamas; no one could compete with him. The Samians took six talents, a tenth of their profit, and made a bronze vessel with it, like an Argolic cauldron, with griffins' heads projecting from the rim all around; they set this up in their temple of Hera, supporting it with three colossal kneeling figures of bronze, each twelve feet high. What the Samians had done was the beginning of a close friendship between them and the men of Cyrene and Thera.

From what I've read, Sostratos is never mentioned again by either Herodotus or any other extant source, and I can't find much information about him online. Is anything else known about him?

I just find it to be such an intriguing anecdote. The most profitable Greek trader of all time! And that's all we know.

Hi,

I am currently reading the said book, and as of now have the following questions -

a) The author mentions that during the late twenties in Germany, the currency Mark was rapidly getting devalued. How does currency devaluation takes place. Please explain in a simple language for a non technical person.

b) Secondly he mentions that the currency devaluation was nicely made use of by the industrialists, who paid off all their loans during this period. How?

c) Though the Nazi party won the elections in 1933 and even before, they could not get the majority. What percentage of the votes were required to get a majority in the Parliament as well as for Presidential elections?

d) The author also mentions of a Prussian Diet during this time. How is it possible to have both the German Parliament and the Diet, in a Unified Germany?

Thanks a lot.

I had a short experience with UOTC, and even there I got issued warm kit.

Why didn't the German Army have proper warm kit? It does get pretty cold in large chunks of Germany

We know officially there are no women or colored people credited on the constitution itself but i am curious if any of their beliefs changed or were influenced during the writing itself. Did any of the founding fathers hear from constituents while writing it and thus had debate and even changed their opinions? Did they have advisers or any documentation to that effect?

[deleted]

Title says it all, I've become interested due to the podcast revolutions, however the topic is super convoluted and my library only has books that confuse me even more. Is there anything out there that lays things out a bit beater and more understandable for the fall of the monarchy and the rise of napoleon?

They were outlaws, murderers, thieves and hated back in America's discovery ages. Why do we see them now as cool people? Is it a recent point of view?

Goods become expensive when there is constrained supply and lots of demand.

Salt has lots of historic uses in food preservation, so I can understand the demand.

The supply however seems almost entirely unconstrained, since anyone with access to saltwater can probably make tens of kilograms of salt in a working day with only firewood (cold climates) or sunlight (equatorial climates), and no special technology.

Restricted access to seawater seems unlikely.

Hence, I can't see any way in which the price of salt could become significant.

What am I missing?

I've read in some articles that the plays and poetry of Shakespare was actually vulgar, sexually implicit and he was considered "low art". And that Titus Andronicus was overloaded with gore and violence.

How is the veracity of these claims? What was the reaction of the contemporary English public, or whoever his audiences on what on the content of his plays and poetry? Did they think it was somehow sexually implicit and immoral or not? Did Shakespeare get a lot of notoriety from the more conservative and moralist parts of English society at that time?

A more relevant question to ask would be: Was William Shakespeare considered the great playwright we now hold him to be nowadays, or did the English public think that he sucks, given in the case that he mostly writes such inappropriate stuff?