We have all been taught about the atrocious treatmeant of slaves in the American south with regards to their basic human rights. I recently learned about the treatmeant of slaves in ancient Rome, where a slave could be killed by their master with no questions asked. Considering slavery continued in the United States well into the post-englightenment age, were black slaves granted any sort of rights "guaranteed" by law or even common social norms?

​

P.S. it's "guaranteed" because I doubt an 1854 South Carolina jury would give a fair and honest trial to a slave.

I'm watching a documentary series on al-Jazeera about the end of the French empire and it featured a meeting between then-president de Gaulle and then-insurgent Ho Chi Minh in Paris. Whilst this meeting was going on, general Leclerc declared independence for Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh returned and it seems he felt like he'd been double-crossed.

My question, and the reason for this post is, whether there is any conclusion as to whether General Leclerc was acting on his own or under direction from Paris? Many thanks for addressing this question.

Going through school, I was told by many a literature teacher that - in the Victorian era - the gentry were careful to stay out of the sun. This was because having a tan was a very "working class" thing to have.

However, it seems to me that all the famous explorers - some of whom were upper class - would almost definitely have had a tan right?

Is there any truth to this at all?

I read the part where it says Nero gave slaves the right to sue their masters, how Antoninus Pius made it homicide to murder a slave without cause etc.

The only source for these claims is a book that is only indirectly related to slavery, i.e. "Prostitution, sexuality, and the law in ancient Rome" by Thomas A.J. McGinn

It doesn't seem particularly credible to me. Did these things actually happen? How well was this enforced if it did?

I know that Germany banned smoking and hard spirits during the 30s and 40s, but considering how culturally significant beer is in Germany and them being extremely nationalized was it ever considered to be banned or discouraged from drinking.

One part of me is it would during world war II for food shortage reasons but not cultural reasons. But other part of me thinks that because beer is so significant to Germany they would pride themselves on still having it.

I'm sure there's some exact answer to this question and I'm just not wording this the best way I can. This is my first time posting here so I hope you guys can answer some of my questions. Thank you.

Hello,

I am making a small website and I want to write a very small and brief article (about 100 words) about the Battle of Kursk. The problem is that it's very expensive topic and I don't know how to shortly explain it.

Could you please help me?

Thank you in advance!

Wish you nice day!

Even though English is the de facto academic lingua franca in the West, I'm sure there is still ample amounts of history written in other Western languages, let alone nonwestern ones. The vast majority of this history goes untranslated, whether its in Italian, Arabic, or Mandarin, and is therefore inaccessible for most historians who do not speak those languages. Do historians who only speak one language go out of their way to examine historiographical developments?

I know that Yardley is the official soap provider to the English royal family and has been for ages, so some soapmakers must have been respected at least somewhat.

Today ballistic vest plates are offered in two materials: steel or ceramic. If historical knight's armor would get penetrated by muskets, why couldn't they just wear a ceramic plate underneath some linen plate carrier? Wouldn't this be effective at stopping musket shots, even if it's just one time use? Why didn't Napoleon think of this?

I'm writing an argumentative speech titled "black history month is still relevant". I'm struggling to find any actual factual evidence to support my arguments for why black history month is still valid. Can you suggest any sources that can be used as evidence?

whenever I open a post, it only shows me the bot answer, and many of the Words are in red. Although it says there are 9 or more responses, I don’t get them except the bot.
Im new to Reddit, what’s going on?

thanks.

I read In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire by Robert Hoyland a few years ago and he ends with the Abbasid Revolution. One of the letters he quoted is an Umayyad governor complaining about people converting leaving him without money to pay his garrison (I think, at least, my memory is a bit foggy on exactly what it was). But the argument Hoyland was making was that the Umayyads needed to continue taxing converts because their expenditures were calibrated to tax revenues prior to the population converting.

So that makes me wonder how the Abbasids afforded to run their empire if they abolished taxes on converts without having instituted anything new, so I presume they did have some newer forms of taxation, but I don't know so I'm asking here!

Recently I’ve learned about the library of Alexandria and love the idea of people in ancient times having a central hub of general knowledge that could be used for the betterment of everybody. What surprised me was how they sent people out to the corners of the known world to try and find anything they could get their hands on. Even people who would pass through the city by land or port would have all their books and stuff copied and were given the copied version while the original stayed in the library.

Now I know Wikipedia is a thing obviously, but is there anything else that has a system similar to the library where it’s a vast system of archived knowledge while also actively looking for more knowledge to add, so much so that people who wanted to access books would have to submit their own? I guess Wikipedia might be the closest we can come in today’s world, I just really like the idea of it in ancient times.

Was Ancient Egyptian religion still widely practiced? Was Christianity more prevalent?

Anatomically, we haven't changed much in the last 300000 years, we've lived in North Africa and the Near East for at least 100000, so why did we seemingly sit around for 90 thousand years and then suddenly, invent farming and found egypt?

AND seemingly independently, on the other side of the world, they Maya seem to do the same thing, roughly at the same time?

I'm researching the fall of the Visigoth Kingdom and I can't really find much information about it outside of a single source from an Egyptian scholar who wrote about it from the perspective of the Umayyads. Why is there no documentation about this event from any European historians? All I can come across is work about the Reconquista and Charlemagne's exploits, but nothing about the initial invasion or the deposition of the visigoth throne

I want to preface this by saying that I personally don't see Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

I'm referring more to the perception of him. Margaret Thatcher called him a terrorist, and Apartheid South Africa was a Western ally throughout the Cold War. So when and how did he begin to be viewed (in the West) as this heroic leader like MLK.

Also, I feel like his image was heavily sanitized; he supported Castro and opposed Israel, but Obama gave a speech at his funeral. How did this happen?

From what I’ve read, until around 1912, American Senators were chosen by State legislatures. How did that work and how were State Senators chosen? Do you have any recommendations on early America’s system of government? Sorry if my question isn’t clear.

It would've made sense to take out the UK first as Germany already had a non-agression pact with the USSR. My thinking was Germany first defeats the UK and get her to sign an armistice giving Germany a "free hand" in continental Europe. Then Germany turns their entire war machine to the USSR.