Did Britain abolish the slave trade because they finally realized slavery was terrible? Or was there some kind of economic reason to maybe hurt other countries or something of the like?

I am interested to find out to what degree was this a truly virtuous act. On the one hand, surely the slave trade was very profitable for Britain so abolition seems like a moral decision. On the other hand, perhaps they were worried of slave revolts, or wanted to cripple New World economies. Maybe they didn't want the French to see themselves as morally superior or something. Anyway, what's the deal?

When you look at texts written in English in the 17th or 18th centuries, you'll see that all the nouns are capitalized. We still do this in titles, but back in the day you also saw it in written text and now it comes off as a typographical peculiarity. Today, German still capitalizes its nouns, but as far as Latin-alphabet languages go, it's a bit of an outlier in that respect.

When did English stop capitalizing its nouns in standard text? Was there an orthographic reform? Were people trying to distinguish themselves from foreigners? And why is the pronoun I the sole exception?

From what I've read, Queen Victoria's uncle succeeded her father as Elector of Hanover on the grounds that women could not inherit titles of German nobility under Salic Law.

However, if I understand correctly, the personal union between the two titles began under Sofia, Electress of Hanover, in which case she held a title of nobility.

What accounts for this discrepancy? Was she married to the Elector of Hanover, and was a consort, instead of holding the title in her own right?

So long as the suspect was able to put some distance between himself and the city in which the crime was committed (while leaving no clues as to his new destination), I'd imagine that the police would have a rough time capturing him.

I'm talking a major crime, but not so huge as to garner national attention.

I know how the Anglican church reacted, but not the Catholic church. With its history of having no strict view about the literal truth of Genesis's creation story, and the fact that the Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic priest (and I assume, supported by the Church against the static universe), I wondered if they were much more tolerant of the idea than the Anglican church. But then, saying the world is extremely old is perhaps less objectionable to saying humans are descended from chimp-like creatures.

As a secondary question, I'd also be interested if anyone knows the reactions of the Orthodox Church, Lutheran and Calvinist churches.

I'm watching It's Always Sunny and they bring Grandpa Reynold's Nazi outfit to a museum to sell it. The director promptly turns them down because "it would mean he is profiting off of the murder of millions of innocent people."

I feel like getting one of those would make their day due to it's historical significance. For the same reason holocaust camps are now museums.

But then again it's just a show. I would like to know if that's an accurate representation. Thanks!

I'm interested in how non-alignment worked when it was first proposed, from an Indian context and was wondering how it was received by both Western and Soviet powers at the time.

Also was this just ideological talk? Because India was certainly a socialist model of government, until it liberalised in the 90s, right?

Can anybody provide some context about this?

I wonder whether Muslims were dehumanized and whether that made it more or less acceptable to rape them.

And similarly, have there been crusaders taking on Muslim wives? Were they forced to convert? Any reports on how easy it was for them adjust?

I can't see any big difference between their uniforms, but I want to be able to know if I'm looking at Marines or Army in photos of soldiers in the Pacific theater. Is there something I'm missing?

Yeah, it’s a big and raging and ongoing debate about the ancient world’s mystery people. The pendulum moreover swings back and forth academically between the autochthonous and eastern migration camps, too. I post now to see how the historians here at Reddit view things. I’m at my wits end drawing my own conclusions. Like the pendulum I swing back and forth and even Michael Grant, one of my big heroes, doesn’t seem to provide any solution. I will offer three things that fascinate me. First, the Etruscans had the best real estate in Italy. First come and first served. Second, unlike the other people who migrated into Italy (pre-Magna Graecia) they were the only ones who had a seafaring tradition. And third, their ability to divine things speaks of techniques only known in Babylon.

I know there were ancient Greeks who wrote about the possibility of life on the moon other planets, and then there was Bruno in the Renaissance who believed in an infinite universe with infinite inhabitable planets. But did anyone before the Space Race show a concrete desire to travel to space themselves? Any ancient writings or drawings of plans or vehicles? What was the first record of someone actively trying to get to outer space?

Please no theories on ancient aliens

If the intention was to end the feud in a single sweep, and to show power..couldn't the message have been delivered with just one?

I could understand if both bombs were dropped at long intervals from each other, but that isn't the case.

This happened in the midst of WW1 and I know thousands of Irishmen served in the British armed forces at the time. Is there any record as to how some reacted to this?

After reading accounts from allied soldiers and seeing images of propaganda from WWII, it appears that people were commonly told that the Axis forces would torture and kill captured Allied troops.

Sadly, most of these resources are heavily biased and as history is written by the victors it is hard to find any information that reflects badly on the Allied forces.

I had family on both sides of the war and I would really love to know how accurate both sides have been portrayed.

I was reading through the unit journal of my grandfather's WWII battalion and his company is mentioned only a handful of times throughout a span of many months while some company's movements are constantly being mentioned. Just wondering what the reason(s) may be for this?

I understand that a sword is not an ideal weapon for fighting plate armour so the warrior would half sword. I just don't understand how a sword could ever be effective in battle since it has been shown to be useless against even the cheapest armours. A sword cannot cut chainmail + gambeson which was what most soldiers on the battlefield had. Even a gambeson on its own gives good protection. To me it seems like a blunt weapon is vastly superior.

Thanks

[deleted]

If they were going to bring 300k+ forces in the 4th battle of Changsha, why did they think they would be able to take the city three times in a row with numerically smaller forces? Why didn't they just wait until they had gathered a larger force before attacking instead of wasting their forces in futile engagements? Did the IJA gain anything from their failed attempts at taking Changsha? I mean you'd think after the first two times they would have learned not to do the same thing over again. Was the IJA so ineffectual that it took them three tries before coming up with the idea of gathering a larger attack force?