I'm just trying to figure out how much guidance American Courts took from England at that time. My understanding is that Colonial Americans thought of themselves as Englishmen, but it's not clear to me how they were bounded to English law. Specifically, could a court in England overrule courts in America?

I'm interested to know what the public perception, and actual statistics, of "daily, civilian violence" due to guns was during the post-civil war era and regions commonly understood as "The Old West".

For the sake of framing, I'm not including acts of war or similar by and against native Americans, or Spanish territories, etc. More the day to day of western towns, cowboys, "gunslingers"... Also limited to"The West" so not New York, Chicago, etc.

I'm particularly interested in how this might compare to today and our contemporary understanding and views about gun violence.

Hello there!

I just found this awesome forum about history and I really need help with a lot of details I don't know about the middle ages. I'm writting a novel set in these ages but I'm not an historian so i have a lot of questions about how life was by that time. In this case I'm interested in how they looked like, how they dressed. I'm from Colombia so my concept of seasons is not very accurate so I also would like to know how it changed throught the year, what kind of materials they used, the differences among social classes and any other details you could provide that can be helpfull to my investigation will be very appreciate.

Thank you very much for your help!

Hello there!

I'm writting a novel that is set at the middle age but I'm not an historian so this kind of things are completely out of my area of expertise. I was wondering how trips were made upstream of a river and what were the conditions to do those kind of trips. I have done a little bit of research but most information is about sea travel or downstream trips. I also know that vikings made upstream raids with their boats and they were very succesfull doing that. So I was wondering if anyone can help me to understand how those travels worked and what were the conditions they took in count for those trips. Also how long they could take, for example if they wanted to go to another upstream city and why they took that amount of time. If you can provide me any example of a real historical route like this that would be great.

I'm not an english native speaker so sorry if I make any mistake. I really appreciate your help and your answers. Thank you!

Edit: I greatly appreciated the great answers regarding how the SCOTUS system came to being. That was enlightening. I was thinking these questions because in the last two months, I' ve read and listen to interviews from three different Justices, nominated by Democratic and Republican presidents, strongly defending that SCOTUS rulings as apolitical. Yet none of them would be sitting as justices if they aren' t nominated by a politician. These interviews reminded me of a remark said to come from Eishenhower that his chief justice nomination is his "most damn fool mistake". It seem that he expected the Justice Warren to side more with his view and dismay that it did not.

I' m more curious on how the Supreme Court conduct themselves in accordances to the politics of their appointers and their reputation as apolitical branch throughout the 1800s to the Warren Court. I' m not looking for modern controversies in the last 30 years or so, there' s enough if that on the news.

It is well known that the Soviet Red Army suffered colossal losses in the first months of the war in massive encirclements such as the one in Kiev, with hundreds of thousands of soviet troops being taken prisoner. The Soviet Union famously managed to raise hundreds of fresh divisions to help stem the German advance. What is little discussed however, are the Soviet formations that maintained a fighting retreat all across the western Soviet Union. Presumably these existed, as otherwise the Soviets would have had country-sized gaps in their front lines. Does anyone know anything on the subject?

Simply wondering how 'real' Nīwe Englaland or New England (in Crimea) was, when answering I certainly wouldn't mind receiving names of any chronicles it is mentioned in etc.

As far as aI know, people did not get married for love in ancient times. In modern times, people choose their partners on basis of love.

Sub-topics:

• what was marriage for? was its function to make alliances among families for pragmatic reason, even in lower social classes?
• Was it common to have a wife for aforementioned reasons and concubines for sex and love/romantic relationship at the same time? (and vice versa from the woman's standpoint)
• When did this change and why?

Given that ancient Rome had a very complex and urban society, I wonder if they had celebrities in a similar way as we understand it today -- although not exactly the same, obviously. I guess politicians or the Emperor would be well known, but did they have famous athletes or artists or just people who were famous for no specific reason - like today?

I'm pretty sure there were famous people in Rome itself, but I wonder if they had empire-level or province-level celebrities too. In that case, how did information about celebrities and their gossips propagate? Books, songwriters, merchants? Thank you.

I was just wondering this today. Many of the crops that I eat like rice, corn, potatoes, quinoa, Yucca/Cassava are all New World food and are eaten throughout the world. Many of these crops were eaten by the indigenous peoples before European Colonization and the global trade markets. I can't really think of any staple food that was grown in Europe besides bread.

Anybody know what people in Europe were eating before the discovery of the Americas by Columbus? I know that there is food thats considered 'old world' but I never see any foods that are high in carbs like rice or a potato.

There were about 70 Roman emperors from 27 BC to 476 AD. From 1066 until the 19th century — about twice as long of a period — there were about 40 English monarchs. From 843 to 1792, France had 52 monarchs. England and France are both defined by long periods in which single families held their respective thrones. In the case of England: Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, and Hanovers. In the case of France: Capets, Valois, Bourbons. These dynasties lasted hundreds of years in some cases. But it seems that Roman emperors had a hard time consolidating power in their families. There were only the Julio-Claudian, Antonine, and the Constantinian dynasties. And for the most part, these weren't cases of sons succeeding their fathers after death; often, more distant relatives would seize power. So why did Roman emperors struggle to keep their families in power, unlike the later monarchs of medieval and early modern Europe?

Hello,

My name is Marilyn and I wanted to ask a question that's been nibbling at my soul. I'm quite intersted in history, and I'm starting to consider maybe becoming a historian. The problem is, as a trans woman, I'm wondering if I'll have to travel to dangerous countries. Even though I don't have much interest in the history that takes place in most of these dangerous areas, I wanted to ask just incase I ever take interest in them. Thank you in advance.

I have read very good things and very bad things about how reliable his writing is. I have read that he was in the Red Army, and survived the gulag. But I have also read that he was fanatic Christian who exaggerated, and that his wife claims the stories he told were never literal (I’ve also heard this was under pressure from soviet government).

How reliable is his work when it comes to history? Is he considered a historian? Or a story teller?

The trading empire of the Dutch Republic would be impressive alone for it's achievements in trade and warfare, but it's astounding when you realize that by 1600, the Netherlands had 1.5m for population! Compare that to 18m of France, or 9m approx of Spain, or 5.6m by England.

I get that they were very sophisticated and had advanced commerce, production and politics. But still... 1.5 million? How is that enough manpower to arm enough soldiers on land to prevent invasions, and sailors to operate a huge fleet? And given the immense wealth and manpower of Spain and Portugal compared to that of the Dutch - what prevented them from just dropping in on Amsterdam and burn it so to keep them out of their business? Or maybe drop in on Calais and march on land if they didn't have enough naval power.

My brain decided to dig up some memories from when I was in 5th grade for some reason.

While I've never studied the case in depth I do know what most people know or maybe slightly more, just what happened and a general idea of why. (Why is always a complicated thing, I try not to dig too deep into that.)

But I'm still curious as to why this is considered such a big, life-changing event when it was not the first school shooting. Can you help me fill in this part of the puzzle?

The story is that the Byzantines blinded 15,000 Bulgars after the Battle of Kleidion, leaving every 100th man half-blind so he could lead the others home. How is this even possible? It makes no sense.

1. How did the Byzantines logistically blind so many people? Even using hot irons to blind 500 people/hour would still take over 30 hours.
2. Why did the Bulgars just hang out and wait to be blinded? 15,000 soldiers is an entire field army. Even half that number is a capable fighting force. Why would they sit and wait to be blinded, rather than fight to escape? Surely they were not all captured and disarmed, and even if they were, 15,000 is a lot of people to control.
3. Is it more likely it is a fake story of mass blinding was meant to sow fear among the Bulgars?

Since I've never heard of an instance, this question would apply to all of human history and all regions.

As i understand even in its later years the roman empire still heavilly relied on enslaved labour to fuel it's economy. what happened to all those slaves when the authority of the state started to crumble and the places they worked we're destroyed ?

What are some detailed books on the non-proliferation treaty? I know the just of its contents but would like more on its construction and impact.

Was it because Moscow was the spiritual capital of the Russians? Was it the British Royal Navy making hugging the coastline too dangerous?