I find Ambrose to be both engaging and accessible, while also laying out a pretty even handed approach to the big picture and personal stories, as well. I was wondering if there is anyone you would recommend that has a similar or even better book or series on the Civil War.

A friend and I were discussing a bit of gun history over a game the other night. (Victoria II a Paradox Grand Strategy)

So the question arose when we were researching new technologies for our countries.

So, what came first, the machine gun or bolt action rifle?

From my understanding, a cadet branch is when a junior line of a house gains power independently - for example, the junior son being granted a title in his or own right.

This explains why Charles de Valois is considered the head of the Valois cadet branch, insofar as he was created Count of Valois by his father.

That said, when his uncle and cousins died, Philip de Valois, son of Charles, became King of France. At that point, one could consider the Valois to be the senior line in the Capetian house. So why are they considered Valois primarily, and Capetians second?

Is this because Joan, daughter of one of the aforemented cousins and previous Kings, became Queen of Navarre, and was thus considered to still be the senior line of Capetians until her death? If yes, what happens after she died - surely then the senior line had become extinct and the Valois were now entirely the senior branch of the Capetians.

It's all so very confusing. Cadet branches don't make sense to me - who decides these things?

My tutor mentioned Churchill's plans for an allied invasion of the USSR immediately following WW2, even possibly with rearmed German soldiers, what would the would the possible ramifications have been and was it ever properly discussed?

This is directed towards the Historians specialized on WW2. The first documentary I came across was the Greatest Story Never Told and it took me 4 episodes and a google search to realize I was watching Neo Nazi propaganda.

It seems like with more troops and better weaponry, as well as being a military leader himself, Chiang Kai-shek would have have a significantly higher chance of winning.

Just wondering if we were able to figure out an average length of reign for royalty in the middle ages. I'm looking mostly for either British or French, but any other data is welcome too. I also understand that it can vary depending on outside forces, but I'm wondering if anyonr wad able to calculate an average. Thank you!

And why make the pledge to an American millionaire?

How did they know? Did they make sure it was actually Japanese forces attacking them before going to war with them?

Did most men join an army or militia? How did the war affect peoples lifestyles? How did british troops treat citizens of occupied cities? How were loyalist sympathisers treated by the american government?

It seems that Plato was very fond of the Dorian and Phrygian modes (at least at the time he wrote the Republic), while Confucian put in his ideal government the "music of the Shao and Wu." (Analects 15.11).

Do we have any music from the Shao and Wu? What about the survival of the Dorian and Phrygian modes?

If a country became victim to a nuclear attack, it would be virtually impossible to survive. So why bother preparing against one?

Hiding under your school desk and all those other safety procedures seem resundant

My grandmother recently gave me the book The Housewife's remedies and good advice published in 1934 (Original Swedish title: Husmoderns hemkurer och goda råd by Kerstin Wennström) which contains advice for women on how to cure certain illnesses. A lot of the advice is very bad, for example: The book gives the advice that if someone suffers from a sore throat, it is good to drink a mix of hot water, honey and turpentine(!). If it is a small child, you should use smaller amounts of turpentine.

Now today we know that this is not very good for sore throats or people in general, but did people really not know better at the time? Or were doctors aware of the problems in these so-called remedies, but thought them the best solution? I'm also thinking of practices such as draining the patient of blood. Did doctors really think that was a great way of curing sickness, or was it more like we view chemo today, a bad solution to an even worse problem?

I posted this question a few days ago and din't get an answer so I'm trying again to see if maybe I posted at a bad time. If i still don't get an answer I won't post again :)

So I just started watching Vikings, and I heard that it is somewhat historically correct, so is Ragnar an actual historical character? (No spoilers, still at episode 1)

I've done a little homework, so I know the trope isn't really that simple or maybe even accurate. BUT. For those Nazi's that were barons(or any other such nobility) who might have fled Germany/Europe after the war, what would have happened to the barony after they "disappeared?"

I'm working on a character history and was planning his grandfather to have been a Nazi and a baron who went into hiding and was wondering what would have happened to the barony to determine how it might affect the rest of the story. If its just sitting there, open, I would have him go claim it if he can.

in 2015 the American Supreme court ruled gay marriage constitutional in all 50 states. Before this ruling, conservatives were fighting to prevent gays from marrying. Forty years earlier they were fighting to keep southern blacks from voting. Fifty-someodd years before that, the culture war was about if women would be allowed to vote nationally. I'm interested in the things I don't know. People talk about how much change we've experienced since the sixties, but what about since before the sixties, say from the 1720s until the 1960s? Was there a change in conventional thought every fifteen/20 years or did early America run on the midevil model, my great grandfathers life is the same as mine? I'm looking for detail on this topic, I've been interested in the particulars of American social change for a while. Films from 1931 are more sexual than films from 1945, was there some time in prefilm American history when conservatives thought the culture had gone liberal? Really curious about this entire topic.

Seems like he should have been dealt with a bit more harshly in 1923. Was it just the weakness of the new Weimar Republic?