• How could such a high number of informants be sustainable?
• How did this effect people's progression in East German society? Did informants generally expect to receive cash or other perks?

Abraham Lincoln was personally against slavery and considered it a moral evil, but only wanted to prevent its expansion during his time as a congressman and Republican presidential candidate.

I apologize in advance for coming off as such a layperson if I do, but I've talked to a couple of people recently that had insisted to me that we could have won the conflict decisively had we stayed a bit longer in our commitment.

Is this something that always comes about with a loss in a war like this? Against guerrilla resistance?

The 2nd amendment of the constitution states the right to bear arms, and usually I read/hear that this article was written in response to the British invasion.

The problem for me is that the 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and the revolutionary war was over in 1783. Do they mean the second amendment was created in case of a possible British revenge war ?

Thanks for any replies, and sorry in advance for any inaccuracies.

Edit: phrasing.

I've wondered why Turkey's capital is Ankara, rather than Istanbul. Was it to relieve tensions between Greece and Turkey? To separate itself from the former Ottoman Empire?

I've heard this fact repeated a couple places and I know chances of survival in a U-boat were pretty bleak, but I'm still skeptical. If it wasn't U-boats, who was it?

I feel like in movies and video games, many shields are portrayed as being made of metal, and wooden shields being portrayed as inferior. However, many historical examples I have seen, such as the Roman scutum, are clearly wooden or wrapped in leather. To what degree was metal used in shields? What is an example of a high quality shield for a foot-soldier?

Full disclosure: I do not identify with the communist worldview on economics and history, which is another way of saying I'm not a communist. However I do personally find the observations of a number of marxist intellectuals on imperialism and colonialism very correct when I examine reality and history myself. Not being a dogmatic ideologue I'd love to inquire and study more, which is why I'd like to ask historians for more insights. Thanks in advance everyone, and you guys maintain a great sub.

While the The Troubles are categorized more generally as conflicts between Republicans and Loyalists, one would be hard-pressed to claim they didn't include extremely sectarian Catholic vs Protestant elements as well. In a situation where people could occasionally be picked up off the street and randomly murdered for being in an area assumed to be populated by the other Christian faction, and where walls were built through the middle of towns on the basis of separating those factions, I'm curious to know what the experience of non-Christians was in this.

Were Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, atheists, or other religious groups targeted? Would they fall afoul of either faction for simply not being the same religion as a given fighter, regardless of not being "the enemy" either?

I also have to imagine that some Catholics were unionists, and some Protestants were republicans... how did such people go about supporting their side without getting either lynched by others of their own side as "traitors," or murdered by their desired colleagues as suspected spies?

/u/petros08, I suspect I may be sending you what looks to be your second thread on The Troubles for today, if you have time for it!

I'm writing a paper for a class about the subject and honestly, I have plenty of books on the subject. The purpose of this post if two-fold. 1) I was wondering what Historians' general account of it are like, and 2) I am having special trouble finding any Journals or articles about the subject so if any Historians could point me in the right direction in that regard it would be highly appreciated.

The main thing I am focusing on is the nature of the relationship between the Arab/Berber conquerors of this period and the two major ethnic groups of Iberia at the time: the Hispano-Romans and the Visigoths. How did the two groups view each other. Was there animosity? Rebellion? How effective were the Arabs at conversion and finally what were the major effects that this had which we can still see today in Spain and Portugal?

Please note: I am not very qualified and don't understand much about what I'm talking about. If there are errors with my background knowledge (outlined below) please let me know (preferrably a p.m. so that the comment section could be dedicated to answering the question) and I will edit it to be accurate.

Background

I've recently learned a little bit about the Axial Age in my history class and found it quite interesting, mostly because I've never heard of it before. Essentially, it was a period of time around 800-600 B.C.E. when people started thinking more philosophically and religions around the world experienced significant changes. Some historians believe the cause for the Axial Age was the growth of cities and improvement of agricultural technology, which allowed people significantly more time for philosophical thought than before.

Question

How did this time period influence different societies and religions that can still be recognized today? Please provide examples and possibly additional reading so that I could understand your answers better and learn more

I know it seceded, and there were a few forts that stayed in Union hands, but that's about it. Were there any major battles in Florida? How did it fare from 'devastation' perspective? How committed to the CSA was it?

If I understand the history correctly (and feel free to disabuse me of any errors), the rise and continued strengthening of the shouen estates is often implicated as a significant factor in the loss of power held by the Japanese imperial court in the centuries following the end of the Nara period, culminating in the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate some four hundred years later.

The tax-free nature and essential independence from the imperial government of the shouen directly empowered local daimyou and temples, enabling them to consolidate ever stronger military and financial power while simultaneously undermining the power of the imperial government in Heiankyou. Land slipped further and further out of imperial hands over the centuries, to the point that by the end of the Heian period there was almost no imperially-owned land left.

My question is, why did the imperial government allow this to continue for so long? Were there no attempts to rein in the system before it led to a complete loss of power by the imperial court? Was it not recognized as a potential long-term problem?