I just saw a post on /r/warcollege on the war between Japan and China and this fact popped up and left me wondering what the point was.

I was wondering why (almost) only sub-Saharan Africans were brought to the Americas during the slave trade, given the extent of European colonies at the time (which would mean people from other ethnicities could be enslaved, I assume). I'm aware that in some countries there was also Amerindian slavery, but my doubt regards only slave trade. Here in Brazil we're taught that slave owners preferred black slaves due to the idea that they were "better workers" than amerindians. Is the same idea involved in the "preference" for black slave trade or is it something else?

This might not be the place to ask but I'll give it a try. I have a speech coming up and I decided to do it over the Napoleonic code and its effects throughout history. For my speech I need to have one interview with an expert or someone who has some credibility over the subject. I would appreciate any help on the matter or at least being pointed out to the right place.

Considering the withdrawal of Germany, Japan, and other nations in the period leading up to World War II, it seems like the League of Nations was largely helpless to even try to do anything. Did the League accomplish any diplomatic achievements or execute any missions while WW2 was going on?

[deleted]

He helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, just seems strange when you at it objectively like that.

I know that Unit 731 were given an amnesty for the results of their unethical research, but what about everything else, like the Rape of Nankin, Rape of Manila, Bataan Death March, Death Railway, Comfort Women, the sinking of australian hospital ship AHS Centaur, the beheading of POW et caetera? Were any Kempeitai sentenced like the Gestapo?

So I read that most of the casualties in battles in ancient times actually came during the rout and there were actually few casualties during the actual battle. So the soldiers if the soldiers in the front weren't just dying and being replaced by the soldiers behind them, what did the soldiers in the back of the formation do exactly? Battles were supposed to have taken days so did they just sit there idly or did they actually do anything? Did anybody outside the first ranks actually use their weapons at all? Also, if people weren't just dying all over the place, why wouldn't they stretch out their formations like during gunpowder times? Was it in case they were flanked or something?

Why is Luxembourg a Grand Duchy instead of kingdom?

As opposed to plantation owners who were independent citizens.

This intrigues me because I wasn't aware that Wales had a stereotypical men's costume, let alone one well-known enough that it would be lynched in effigy.

Did they think the lions had simply "gone away"? Were they aware a species could die off? Were they aware man could kill a species off?

How did later generations speak of the lions on either side of a city's lion's gate? It's not as if these are dragons; other large cats must exist here and there, and those other cats are different from the sculptures at the gates.

And what was learned from them?

Hi all historians i come from a place in the UK called Hull,it has quite the maritime past.We once was the icon of port and fishing even quite the masters at whaling.So we would have supplied quite the pretty penny and amount of trade .This was just a bit of history of my home town.But I am writing this to ask what do you think whaling brought and advances it created for industry and geographical profits and ect.I know that it has led to the endangerment of many species and maybe the extinction of some.I know i sound like an ass when i say but can we try focus on the positives and achievements it brought to our lives and how the world was changed by whale oil.Thank you all for reading!

I have been reading the Iliad and when I read book 10 I noticed it seemed out of place based on how it was written compared to earlier and later books in the Iliad. After further research I found that many consider the book to be from a later period.

So my theory is it was written in the 5th to 4th century B.C. The reason behind this is the character Dolan. In my opinion a character like him would have been very popular to add due to the traitor at Thermopylae, Ephialtes of Trachis, in 480 B.C.

So what are your opinions on this? What if any evidence supports this and or does not support this? Or is there any evidence at all?