Marx's Kapital was first published in 1867, but it wasn't until 1917, fifty years later, that the first communist state came into existence. This means that Marxist thinkers had fifty years to iron out the details and produce a relatively consistent package of ideas to which most Marxists adhere.

In contrast, the first stirrings of fascist thought showed up during WW1 with thinkers like Gabriele D'Annunzio and Enrico Corradini, while Mussolini's March on Rome took place in 1922. This means that fascism as an ideology had less than ten years to develop from a vague intellectual movement to a coherent, practical political ideology.

Did fascists actually know what they were fighting for, or was it more of an emotional outburst against failure in WW1 and the rise of the left?

Cannons with long barrels penetrate their target better, and have better velocity/range than short barrels. Therefore, I don't understand why there weren't more long barreled cannons (World War 1 - beginning of World War 2). Ive seen tanks, and even artillery from World War 1 with so short barrels that you can barely see them. Do short barrels have some advantages I don't know about?

I know that they had full legislative power during the republic, but they are never mentioned in the imperial period. I know they were still around, but I also know that the Emperor had basically unlimited power. So what exactly did the Senate do during that time? For that matter, what powers did the consuls have?

They were captured slaves from foreign countries that were incorporated into a military class - was this military class like the samurai, and was the mamluks ruling Egypt like if the samurai would take over and rule Japan? Thanks

[deleted]

Napoleon is known for his political and military might, but how was everyday society under Napoleon's France? (For example women's status in society, etc) Additionally, how was religion affected?

Would they have been rehabilitated and put to use elsewhere/been allowed to return home, or would they have been exterminated?

My dad and I have been talking about Jamestown, specifically the Starving Time. He believes it was just dumb luck that the English got control of the New World. I'm trying to think of how the Starving Time ended up helping the English.

Was this a result of economic hardship, ease of accessing arms/support, something else? I'm thinking along the lines of the IRA, ETA, etc.

I might just not know enough about the period but I've been doing some research and it seems like East German leaders were always on the conservative, hardline edge of Communism, while even Russian leaders like Khrushchev and Gorbachev were more reform-minded.

I know that the first Crusade was the bloodiest but were the Crusaders really worse than the Caliphates?

I read that in the Kingdom of Jerusalem both Muslims and Jews had their own courts as well as the Latin court and an Arab Christian called Saad was made Martial of Jerusalem.

Ibn Jubayr seems to have been shocked that Muslims were not obligated to follow Shariah law in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Could it be the Crusaders after the 1st Crusade were actually more moderate or secular than the Muslim dynasties they were fighting?

What about the alleged civilian massacres - can some one enlighten me on that?

Were taxes on Muslims worse during the Crusaders?

Ibn Jubayr states:

This is one of the misfortunes afflicting the Muslims. The Muslim community bewails the injustice of the landlord of its own faith, and applauds the conduct of its opponent and enemy, the Frankish landlord, and is accustomed to justice from him.

Which seems like a veiled attempt at saying Muslims under the Franks preferred Frankish law.

Was wondering if it's the norm to say "the state of the union is strong" regardless of how the administration or the country was doing. Especially curious about the Civil War, Great Depression or World War years. Are there any notable speeches that deviated 'from script' or was received with surprise?

Obviously not interested (rules) in post 1996 speeches.

[deleted]

I have been listening to NPR quite a bit lately and they really like Jazz. I started to think about how jazz started out as music that you would hear in a speakeasy. Then by the 40s or 50s it was ubiquitous. And now, it is the music of the cultural elite. So my question is what caused that? Who were the people involved? Was it the record industry, academia, respected artists that started playing jazz? Did the listeners of jazz become the elite? Was it NPR? Is it a unique story or have many types of high-art music come from such humble beginnings? Any onther insight about the rise of jazz that I am forgetting to ask about?

Hello everyone, I know that losing one's flag/standard was considered dishonourable by most of the armies. But what happens if a unit gets their standard destroyed? Like let's say during Napoleonic Wars , Regimental flags get destryoed by artillery fire to the point where it's irrecoverable. Would that count as a "honourable loss" or would it be regarded dishonourable as well?

I thought of this while in my English class today. I was writing as a part of a journal assignment my professor gave us, and my hand started cramping; the question came to mind of how a monk in the middle ages would deal with this pain if they have to transcribe entire books. If there any record of how they addressed this issue? I imagine the pain must have been unbearable.

Hi everybody!

I am (re)watching Boardwalk Empire. and once again I am stroke the most by this (to me) very interesting mix about yiddish, italian and irish "mafia". I was wondering if you could suggest a good book about the rise and fall of the different "ethnic flavored" mobs. Ideally the book should touch Jewish, Italian and Irish mafia (with a sparkle of Cuban and Caribbean, why not), their relationship and the causes that made these specific organizations so successful (and maybe why certain do still exist while other have disappeared). Since I am not expecting that a single book could cover all these I will gladly accept suggestion about more specific theme. Thank you in advance!

I was talking to some friends about the Depression and he pretty much said that FDR and the New Deal was why it lasted so long. But he failed to explain why.