[deleted]

[deleted]

As far as i know in most countries people use "slang" in different parts of the country, sometimes from shortened words or influenced by other languages. I can't imagine it being different in the roman empire, or any other old civilizations for that matter, but is there any actual proof for the use of "slang"?

I scanned the rules and promoted resources and couldn't find anything related to asking about this or literature of the type, so I thought I'd ask. All help is appreciated!

From Anglo Saxon kingdoms through to the present? A map or series of maps? Or a flow chart or something showing how they were broken up by William and then evolved from there?

[deleted]

Why not something more accurate or majestic, thing just seems underwhelming

I know there were 2 different factions, and the one backed by Sam Houston wanted to join the U.S., so why did it not happen until much later?

What was the support of the average Texan for joining the U.S. Or making its own country?

I'm working my way through the Oxford History of the U.S. series, but there's a gap between the Civil War and 1929. I filled in the Reconstruction era with Eric Foner's "Reconstruction; America's Unfinished Revolution", which was great. Can anybody recommend general histories for the period from Reconstruction to 1929 or thereabouts?

Political debates today are generally nothing more than silly circus entertainment shows. Very little substantial discussion takes place.

I've heard that back in Abraham Lincolon's time candidates would stand up on a platform one at a time and speak for several hours in a row without interruption and people would silently listen. Then the next candidate would take the stage and speak for several hours without interruption. How much truth is there to that? If that's not what it was like, what was it truly like?

Thanks!

I've just noticed that none of the early Greek writers I know of seem to have mentioned the Romans, even in passing. I know that they were just a small city for most of their history but I just feel like there must be some minor little reference in all the surviving Greek literature. Does anyone have information on this?

In 1945 it was obvious that Germany was losing territory to the allies and it looked to many Germans as though defeat was likely. So why didn't concentration camp guards kill off all of their inmates possibly by starvation and dehydration rather than letting them fall in to allied hands. Surely Himmler at least must of known that if the "Final Solution" was revealed to the world that Germany would suffer a major PR loss. And to Nazi minds killing them would have been a major success. In that they would have almost completely wiped out the Jewish and Roma races.

If not a slave class, some other kind of under-class/race that was then declared equal under law. Are there any examples showing how long it takes such a sub group to "get over" the legal second class status of their ancestors, and catch up with everyone else in terms of education, income, public perception, general prosperity, etc?

In modern times, there are some groups that seem to have "caught up", and others that are still yet to fully recover. Blacks in America, for example. If you graph their average earnings from emancipation until now, it still hasn't caught up to the line for the general population. Nor has the line for life expectancy, or many of those other development markers.

Any examples from history showing how long that process normally takes?

Full disclosure: the question is for a presentation I have to do. But the professor himself admitted that it would be difficult to find out. He was going to show us a film named "Tokugawa Yoshinobu" that would "give us a tip", but then he didn't and I can't find the movie. Maybe one of you can tell me where to find it?

Anyway, here is my hypothesis so far, based on what I've read. I didn't know much about the issue before last week when I started preparing, so forgive my potentially grave mistakes in understanding.

The first question is why his army was defeated in the first place, which I think I've figured out: parts of the Bakufu army were modernized, parts of it weren't, especially the seigniorial armys were fighting with traditional weapons and armor. The extent to which their opponents' armies were modernized was much greater, which was possible due to their differing economic strategies, allowing them to purchase more modern weapons etc... also some of the seigniorial armies defected to the other side.

There are also some elements of morale and fighting spirit to this, but I'm not sure I was able to understand this dimension in the short time I've had.

So the second question kind of presumes that, even though Yoshinobu lost the battle at Toba-Fushimi, his army was much stronger in terms of manpower and he would have potential foreign support at his side. But he surrendered fairly soon and easily, why? Or was it simply because his army was inferior? But the phrasing of the question suggests otherwise.

My guess: Previously he had already given over his nominal power to the emperor during the effort to modernize the governmental structure. His plan was to nevertheless maintain a high rank with in the planned parliamentary government, ensuring him a lot of influence while only giving up his position of Shogun. I understand that the civil war came to pass because other factions were not happy with him maintaining that much power (grossly oversimplified, of course). By surrendering early I assume he tried to save what could be saved to avoid the risk of being excluded from politics altogether or even exiled or killed. He wasn't that attached to the idea of keeping his position of the shogun anymore in the first place. But then again he didn't really wield any political power anymore after the Meiji Restauration, or did he? I read that at least his family line and the name of Tokugawa was allowed to remain intact.

So... please just let me know if my hypothesis is ridiculous or not and what you think could have been his reasons! I really apologize, I'm not knowledgeable about this topic at all and it seems to be a very complex following of events all influencing each other in many layers, so I am having quite some trouble with it. Also English is not my first language, so apologies for any unclear expressions and the like.

Edit: I'm not sure why my post has the "theatre" flair... and I don't know how to change it.

Hello everyone,

I have a question concering French light infantry regiments during the Napoleonic wars. I know that they were divided into chassuer, carabiner and voltigeur companies but how were they different from one another? What were the roles of a carabiner, chassuer and voltiguer company?

I always see it on movies where a person is lost on an island and asks for help by sending a message inside a bottle. With enough luck the bottle will reach someone and help the stranded person. Are there any records of this actually saving anyone?

This stereotype may not be followed in the 21st century but we still see a majority of women having long hair while a majority of men having short hair and I know this was very much prominent in the 20th century.