I'm reading the Count of Monte Cristo right now, and after looking a little into it dueling seems to be just straight up murder on the grounds of "honor".

Were there laws that allowed the killing of someone through the medium of a duel? If so what were the legal foundations of them?

I'm developing a DnD campaign with a focus on relative historical accuracy (in some areas). The setting is a time period that roughly mirrors technology and culture the late roman republic/ early empire.

So part of that is looking at weapons of the time. Looking at random internet sources, I see lots of things such as the gladius, doru, spatha, kopis, falcata, xiphos, which are all 1 handed weapons.

I guess my question is whether or not the small size of these weapons is related to the choice of the armies using them, or was there some technological limitation preventing them from producing longswords and such?

The US has a reputation for being "a nation of immigrants," and stories abound in both popular media and in people's own family histories of the common American immigrant story -- leaving the Old Country at some point between 1800 - 1950, coming through Ellis Island or California, and integrating into the fabric of the country.

It seems like Canada has been fairly similar to the US for most of its history: settled by Europeans, with almost unlimited physical space for homesteaders, strong economy, etc. Is there a reason that Canada doesn't have the same immigrant "story" as the US? Is it the case that immigration was similar in Canada but the US is simply the more commonly told story, or was the US truly a more popular destination for some reason?

I'm watching the Soviet Storm documentary series (which is awesome), and every time they show reenactments of Russian infantry charges, there's always an officer with just a pistol charging with the men. What was the role these officers were supposed to play? They're never shown wearing helmets, and they only ever have a revolver.

The Vice President is kind of a strange office. It has almost no real power, famously called by Adams "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." Even just what the VP was supposed to do with the Preosdent died seems to have been unclear and debated when it first happened - was he an interim placeholder, or now the real president?

But it does have one, actual role - breaking ties in the Senate. Thinking on this, something struck me though. The high minded Founding Fathers, writing the Constitution, hoped that parties/factions wouldn't be a thing. Candidates for President would simply be the best and brightest the country had to offer. As such, the winner became President and the Runner-Up became Vice President. This only changed in 1804 with the 12th Amendment. So while now the VP serves to break a tie in the Senate in favor of the administration's position on a bill, assuming a Vice Presidency in less than concert with the Presidency - of which the Adams-Jefferson administration would seem to be the main example of - the VP would actually be quite possibly a tie breaker against the President's wish.

So basically, what was the rational behind the creation and shaping of the office of Vice President as originally conceptualized, and more specifically, was there some intent to have the VP be a counterweight to the President, or is it really just a reflection on the idealism of the Founding Fathers that the Prez and VP would be above party politics?

I've read that Gavin Menzies claims that Zheng He's voyages were not afflicted by scurvy, because they had good vitamin C sources (such as sprouting stored soybeans throughout the voyage). It seems to me that this would be feasible prima facie, but Gavin Menzies isn't a credible source.

I can look at bits of Avoiding the Dire Straits: An inquiry into Food Provisions and Scurvy in Maritime and Military History of China and wider East Asia, by Mathieu Torck on Google Books, but it’s fragmentary unless I actually put down, like, $60 for the real thing.

I was just wondering what years or year it's considered that Ancient Rome was at its biggest and best.

[deleted]

From what I have gathered, Prussia was the amalgamation of states in the area before they became unified as Germany. But what led to the states identifying as Prussia and later Germany?

Interested in the leaders, cultures, and a timeline of unification. A simple explanation with leads to primary or secondary sources would be fantastic as my fiancee and I would like to do some reading before our honeymoon!

[deleted]

From presidents to war heroes like Ted Jr. on the beach at Normandy, the Roosevelts seem like they were truly a great political family, much more so than the modern political dynasties of the Clintons and the Bushes. Why are they no longer in American politics?

I'm doing a study on the epistemology of Greek Fire, and whether or not any of what we know about Greek Fire can be considered knowledge, and also what shall be the criteria for possessing such knowledge. If there are any Byzantine scholars that can offer some time for me to contact through PMs, that would be highly appreciated. Thanks!

Battlefield 1 is coming out this year, and I was looking at preorders. The game cover art shows a black man, with the collectors edition coming with some sort action figure thing that is also a black man. Based on my history courses I took in college, I recall that there was a somewhat limited involvement of blacks in WWI. This made me question whether the game was diversifying for the sake of showing diversity rather than historical accuracy. If my memory is correct in that there was a limited involvement of American blacks in battles, where there other nations that had more black involvement?

I have reviewed the book list and could not find anything directly related so I thought I would ask if anyone had any recommendations for a book on the greco persian wars. I am looking for something informative but also not super dry. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

As far as my understanding goes the war hammer would not come in to use until many centuries later, so why how did the Vikings end up with one of their principal gods using it as a weapon?

My fairly limited knowledge of the history of Social Darwinism, or Darwinism applied to races and people was that it's normally imposed by the 'Better Race/Groups etc.' onto the 'Lower Race/Group etc.'

But I was wondering if there's any records of these 'Lower Groups' either supporting or accepting the idea that they themselves are inferior or in some way bellow another groups? or internalising the idea that they're inferior and there are 'masters' above them.

Thanks for your time.

Simple question, Looking at a map, why would the British strike at the small peninsula of Gallipolli and not anywhere else along the very long coast of Anatolia?

Side question, was there any sort of raiding/blockade of any Ottoman Territory along the Med? Particularly Anatolia?

South Asian here. During my history classes in school I was taught how the British gained power and conquered much of South Asia around the 1600s. However none of the sources that I read ever mentioned the British employing slavery in these lands. However at the same time slavery was widely practiced in American colonies like Barbados and others.

Either I am missing something, or the British really did not employ slaves in South Asia.

Can someone explain why this is so?

I know this is not a specific question but I have been lurking this subreddit almost everyday for a few weeks, making a list of books I find in source section of the answers or inside the answer. During the past year or so, I've read some great books on history, like Barbara Tuchman's "Distant Mirror" and "March of Folly", Jack Weatherford's "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, "World Lit Only By Fire" by William Manchester, "1000 Years of Annoying the French" by Stephen Clarke, "People's History of United States" by Howard Zinn, Bill Bryson's "Short History of Nearly Everything" and began reading "Life in A Medieval Castle/Village/City" by Frances and Joseph Gies.

Can you suggest similar books?

Hello i have a couple of questions about heavy water during the second world war which i could not find on google. 1: Why did Norway have a heavy water plant and what did the Norwegians use it for? 2: Why did the Germans never build their own heavy water plant in Germany insteading of going through all the hassle of wanting to transport it all the way from Norway to Germany. 3: Did the US ever use heavy water for their bomb? Thank you :)

In the 17th century Sweden took what is now southern Sweden from Denmark. They forced everybody to speak Swedish and while I'm sure people complained at the time, nobody cares today. When was the last time an invasion actually worked, not ending in eternal internal conflict?

EDIT: A possible other way to phrase the question is "Which is the most recent annexation that is recognized by all member of the UN?"