Here's the scenario:

A Confederate soldier realizes that he no longer wants to fight for the Confederate cause, and so he deserts and finds a nearby Union encampment. Assuming he isn't shot, and is captured. What would happen to him? Also, instead of withholding information about the Confederate's positions, he is completely open and willingly gives up whatever he knows. Also, say he wanted to fight alongside the Union lines, what would be his chances of accomplishing that?

For example was anyone allowed to wield a sword or were only soldiers etc. permitted to?

Re-posting because I'm still interested. How did different Andean empires manage the plurality of ethnicities and cultures within their borders? Did they largely attempt to maintain the cosmopolitan nature of their empires, or did they make attempts at assimilation into a national culture? What strategies did they employ to either maintain a pluralistic empire, in the first case, or assimilate diverse groups, in the second case?

I know the answer to a degree for the Inca state, so I would love to hear about their predecessors, especially the Wari and Tiwanaku.

My first thought would be due to the fact that the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman empire being made up of different ethnic groups. Would this assumption be correct or were there other factors involved?

More specifically, I'd be interested in knowing how the transition from Soviet Union to Russia took place. Also, if there are any interesting stories regarding the transition and any other Soviet embassies, let's hear them!

I hope I didn't get this wrong, but I was trying to pick points in time when both kings would have been at home rather than abroad and/or out on campaign.

I know this is a stupid question,

but if we analyse what is written about in newspapers in the last 200 years or so, we could get a good map of what is considered noteworthy events and their frequency and impact.

Taking into account what we know already about cultures, governance, and things like population growth and dynamics ought we not be able to get some rough estimates of what we have lost?

Is this something historians have looked into? I want numbers not anecdotes.

It is the heart of archaeology for obvious reasons but culturally it has amounted to an obsession unexplained. Roman/Greek is part of western tradition but Ancient Egypt is older and far away from anything we can understand about ourselves at least without deep study. Yet pop culture it has captivated many children's imaginations even though there are many other ancient civilizations. And this began during the Napoleonic wars, at a time of age of enlightenment and splitting away from Christianity. Ancient Egypt plays a grand role in the bible, where it is mainly a villain or a metaphysical kingdom. Is there some deep void in western culture that Ancient Egypt fills with all its Gods and esoteric rituals? The obsession goes so far as to be a cultural appropriation by both whites and blacks.

I've always wanted to know and everything i heard kinda complicates it's a bit confusing

I don't know why this occurred to me, but it seems kind of disconcerting.

Someone catches an arrow in the shoulder or something, they fall, they're bleeding/whimpering/generally in a bad way. I'm further in behind them in the formation. Maintaining cohesiveness in the formation is key (at least as I understand it); if everybody starts scooting around everybody that gets hit by arrow fire, then things are going to get loose in a hurry.

Does everyone just walk over the poor guy with their armor and their combat kit? It seems like this would seriously increase the mortality rate of people hit by arrows.

I have heard the interpretation that Æthelbald rebelled against his father due to his marriage to Judith (later Judith of Flanders) the daughter of Charles the Bald, who was at the time King of West Francia (only).

As her womb had been 'blessed' he may have feared that any sons born to her would have a better claim to the throne of Wessex than had Æthelbald.

However, the logical flaw I see in this interpretation is that Æthelbald would have known his father was elderly and had recently taken a 'pilgrimage' to Rome, both giving strong hints that his father would not live long.

Did Æthelbald really believe that a young child born of Æthelwulf and Judith, without any protection from his father, would be a threat to him? Was he afraid of Charles the Bald invading from across the channel to support his grandson? If so, was that a legitimate fear?

Full disclosure - I've been listening to the British History Podcast and this apparent logical flaw stuck with me.

[deleted]

I've done a lot of reading about ancient cultures, ranging from Babylon, Assyria, Sumer, and the Hittites to Persia, Greece, Rome, and Carthage, and many in between. I am hoping to get more information (and recommendations for further reading if possible) on the topic of ancient tourism. Would an ancient Greek have known of and been fascinated by Sargon the Great? What would the attitude towards monuments and ruins have been? (Obviously those with religious purposes may have been held sacred over long periods). Would an Egyptian from 300 BC have been interested in their history from the time of Ramses II?

I have picked up little bits and pieces - for example, Alexander the Great visiting a tomb or two, and then subsequently having his tomb become a destination of other great leaders' visits. But my question is more about the general populace - would a citizen have known or cared about ancient history, especially from other cultures?

In Holocaust history there seems to be a lack of focus on the role women played in the Holocaust. If possible could you explain the role women played in the Holocaust? also how large their role was in the Holocaust? If possible could you also recommend some articles, and books on the topic? Thank You in advance.

Do they believe that races all developed separately in different parts of the world? I'm guessing there is some sort of mysticism they believed in.

How did they account for Roman domination of the west? The Romans would have subdued countless German tribes to cement their hold.

The Egyptians and Greeks were all much more advanced western civilizations, educationally speaking, no?

How did Hitler justify his black/brown hair and eyes and Austrian background? Was it enough that Austria is a largely Germanic nation?

I am assuming France and England had larger populations and stronger economies right? Why were they on the defensive? Why not launch their own invasions into Denmark, Norway, and/or Sweden?

So in my Early Modern Europe class my teacher mentioned the idea of confessionalization and how it helped act as one of the building blocks for the modern state. The idea sounded very interesting but she did not go into much detail. Hopefully someone can give me a more in depth explanation!