I'm starting to look more into this time period in American history, and I was just curious. So, as I understand it, the Continental Congress involved every US colony, except for Georgia, and its main purpose was to allow for a nationwide (for lack of a better word) response to the Intolerable/Coercive Acts, as well as to issue demands to the British Parliament. My question is this: did Great Britain know that its colonies were congregating before their king was given these demands? And if not, did they make any attempt to stop such a meeting from taking place in the future? After all, the idea of a Continental Congress couldn't have sounded good to Great Britain. And just how secretive was the Continental Congress? Thanks.

As a person who is very interested in the Great War, I find it odd that I was taught very little about it in school and that it is harder to find movies and such on world war 1?

I've been thinking about this for a bit and we talk a lot about the events leading up to the adoption of Christianity as a state religion and we talk about how Christianity was able to integrate itself into local cultural traditions. We sometimes also talk about Mandaeanism as an early competitor to Christianity.

Maybe I haven't looked through the FAQs thoroughly enough, but the focus seems to be more on the adoption of christianity, rather than the abandonment of paganism. Having said that, I do remember someone suggesting that converting religion (or just praying to a different god to see if he answered your prayers better) was less stigmatised amongst pagans. In which case, was it inevitable that something might come along which did stigmatise apostasy, which could displace paganism?

I'm aware of Wikipedia but I want something more in depth. Is there anything that has what clothing items, kits, weapons, rations, the amount of spare ammunition they carried, the difference in equipment issued between a ranker and a NCO, unit composition from bottom to top, the kind of can opener they had....etc.

In short what is the definitive guide?

The earlier Federalist party, for example, supported a stronger Federal government, hence the name. Was there something especially 'Democratic' or 'Republican' that those parties' creators were trying to emphasize?

So there's no way they took it through mainland Europe..it was completely occupied. They couldn't like sail it through denmark/sweden and get it to like Leningrad or something because that was controlled by the Germans. They couldn't take it from Alaska to Russia because you got a big old Japanese navy going on + you would have had to transport all those supplies through Siberia...

So how did they get all those trucks and supplies there?

Nope, I don't mean "which country started colonialism" or anything, I mean when did people start to refer to European expansion overseas using the word 'colonialism'? I assume that it's some sort of intentional allusion to the colonies planted by the ancient Greeks and Romans, but that's just a guess on my part.

[deleted]

Is there any evidence that it was chosen by the Ottomans because it had a Graeco-Roman past?

As a child I had some captivation with the thought of Hellenistic ruins hiding in the dense, lush foliage of jungles. Now that I know a little more about the reach and extent of Hellenistic architecture, I fear my dream was nothing more. Any examples to the contrary?

Would these musicians all have rich Patrons? Or would they support themselves by going from gig to gig, like modern musicians? Would they go out and party after shows? Would the entire orchestra have a certain level of notoriety and fame, or were they just seen as support for the famous composers and conductors?

Did Herodotus have an opinion on why the invasion failed? Was his opinion round about right or does he miss something out?

I am writing a 15-20pg term paper on how the Confederacy could have defeated the North at Gettysburg.

My thesis: Had there not been any hindrances for Gen. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, the Confederates would have most likely won the battle and quite possibly coerced the North into capitulation with a truce. The list of poor circumstances for Lee include the death of Gen. “Stonewall” Jackson, Gen. JEB Stuart’s absence for the first two days of battle, Gen. Ewell’s missed opportunity to attack a retreating Union army up Culp’s Hill, the surprise placement of Gen. Sickles’ men in Devil’s Den, the poor coordination and timing of assaults, and the massive failure of Pickett’s charge.

After speaking with my professor, I realize that the majority of my sources will be secondary with the girth of my analysis weighing the views of various leading historians on the topic. My main issue right now is finding pertinent primary sources to help support or argue against my thesis. As far as the primary sources go, I am working with the battle accounts of both Meade and Lee as well as a letter from Lee to Jefferson Davis that undermines the failure of the South invasion. While these are interesting, they provide a very limited amount of material to work with. Any advice or referrals to types of/specific primary sources would be greatly appreciated.

For my secondary sources, I am using a variety of online scholarly sources and have only one solid book thus far, Battle Cry of Freedom by J. McPherson. As books generally look better than online sources, any recommendations here would be appreciated as well.

I hope this post didn't violate Questions/Homework rule and thanks for yalls help!

I had the random thought about whether British accents sounded different 300 years ago than they do today, and if they did if there is any way that we could possibly know that. Also, are there any interesting examples of figures of history that had interesting voices or speech impediments?

Could Poles travel to The Soviet Union, East Germany or any other Soviet controlled State?(Ukraine, Belarus etc.)

And if yes, did they need a permit or just a passport?

I'm reading Adrian Goldsworthy's How Rome Fell and he just casually drops the above claim quite lightly with a statement like "in contrast to what people now claim".

He was speaking on the emperor Elagabulus, and the rumors that swirled around him about his antics (clearly not well received)

Spending some time here it does seem to be a popular view that Roman concern over homosexuality was mainly over who was perceived to have power or who was penetrating, but Goldsworthy maintains that,while it was not particularly worth staring a riot for with an emperor with temperance, it was still always wrong.

Are both these views true? Did it apply for a particular segment of the population or all of them?

What are some of the best historical Youtube channels? I like US and European history, but I'm interested in all history. I know about Crash Course, but I'm looking for something more in-depth.