I recently saw a video on youtube that claimed that accounts from around the period of the writing of the constitution show that the main reasons for the 'right to bear arms' was to avoid large standing armies (due to fear of military coup) and because Viginia feared a mass exodus of slaves trying to run to northern states (the idea being these milita's would act as slave patrols in the state). I was wondering if there's actually any truth to this claim and if so, is their also any evidence that the second ammendment was to ensure 'limmited government'/allow for overthrow of a tyranical one.

I have always been fascinated by the Greek mythology but I have read that the Greeks didn't really believe in it and saw it as just story's

Since the BPP was partially influenced by Maoism, Marxism–Leninism and other socialist/communist ideologies I asked myself if their movement gained any recognition by those countries and if so how were they perceived?

I´m doing a presentation on Carthage and I was thinking about what things are important about this ancient city. I only have about 8-10 minutes but I am also in trouble finding good enough sources.KT

I am reading up on Ottoman Habsburg wars, but I just dont understand the reason behind them. What did Ottomans want to achieve? Why was taking Wienna so important, did they plan to expand into Germany had they won? Or did they just want to crush their rival and then leave the area. Did the goals change (Did first siege of Wienna have different goals/reasons than the second and what those reasons were)?

Uh, Bronze Age, Iron Age. What was the difference as far as making weapons?

Things were cast and hammered from bronze, and later things were smelted and forged from iron?

I'm doing an assignment based on the above question, but I've only got my course textbook to hand right now (AQA A2, The Making of Modern Britain, 1951-2007, published 2009 by Nelson Thornes) and my conclusion is probably going to be that the disunity of the Labour party was a big factor in this. I'm looking for more sources and viewpoints to offer counter points or further support for this view. If anyone could point me in the right direction it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

If it was possible at all, how frequently did individuals move from one caste to another, and what would cause such a move?

Be broad and fill me with goodness.

I'm watching Mad Men, S4, Ep7 and they're talking about going to a theater where they can watch the fight on "closed circuit". I'm wondering how. As far as I know, projectors needed film before the digital age. How does a 60s era live projector work? (some sort of overly bright CRT and lenses?)

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm from the southwest and born in 95. Closest thing to a western I've seen was Django unchained but I want to get into the culture and history of the southwest and I was wondering if there was any good comprehensive history books about native American warriors and cultures. I'm a marine I'm not looking for anything too technical and I'm a little turned off by extensive themes of white guilt. Although I understand that it is defiantly going to be a part of history I'm not looking to feel angry at the white man I just want to learn some more about different cultures. Thanks.

I've seen a theory that in societies like the Pacific NW Native Americans which rely heavily on food sources like salmon, which can be accumulated and stored, social stratification follows. This is intuitive, and unfortunate, but I was curious if anyone knows of any examples of cultures which developed under similar circumstances who do/did not exhibit stratification, or at least exhibit less stratification. If not, can you think of a system that could potentially prevent such trappings from developing?

I've started watching the Tudors, which my Anglophile family raves is "pretty good, but not nearly as good as A Man for All Seasons or Wolfe Hall or Lady Jane," and in the first episode, there's a scene where Henry VIII and the Queen, Catherine of Aragon, have their evening meal in a relatively small room with only their servants in attendance.

It is my understanding that in medieval and early modern monarchies, monarchs tended to dine publicly, at least for large meals. In fact, this was an important job for the monarch, as it provided time for interacting with many people at court and making displays of favor and other things. I would think that even smaller scale meals would have guests outside of the monarch and their spouse, am I wrong?

It seems that technology has always been viewed with some degree of suspicion for the effects it has on human behavior. Modern day authors like Jared Diamond (not the most popular guy around this sub, I know) have argued that the lifestyle of hunter gatherers, with its good nutrition, high amounts of free time, community cohesiveness, lack of coercive state bodies, and lack of social stratification live a superior lifestyle to people in settled, agricultural societies.

I've heard ancient civilizations interacted with nomadic hunter gatherers before, at a time when there were probably many more such people than there are in the modern era. Did any thinkers at the time argue that compared to decadent, corrupt, miserable, civilized urban societies, unsettled, "primitive" hunter-gatherers lived a better or more fulfilling life?