Or did were Europeans the first to bring it to the New World? If so, were the Natives quick to pick up technology brought by the Europeans?

Is the brutal gray-on-gray-on-gray associated with Soviet and Russian cities for a reason besides costs? Was planning done at a local level or at a regional one?

I know nothing on this subject and have been wondering about this for a while, so any data helps! Thanks for being awesome, Ask Historians!

I know the Founding Fathers were for religious freedom and tolerance and for the clear separation of church and state. But nowadays religion has such a disproportionate importance in American politics that it effectively makes or breaks a candidate. Can anyone explain what happened in the past two centuries which led to the current state of affairs? Any reading recommendations on the matter also very welcome.

[deleted]

Did gun crews fire at specific tanks or did they fire in tanks general position?

Its my limited understanding that GI bill itself didn't exclude black veterans, but its administration was conducted at the local level where many of them faced an impossible uphill battle. After the civil rights movement won some victories, was there ever a serious push to reopen old applications or the window to apply to veterans or their families?

During classes about the peleponisian war we hear that Argos was often at war with it's neighbour Sparta. Later on we also see that it has joined in an alliance with Athens.

So what happens to Argos during the peleponisian war? What was their role and what did Athens defeat mean to them?

There's a theory that in Jesus's 'lost years' (the time of his young life that's not discussed in the Bible) he travelled east to India, and maybe other places, and learned a lot of Hindu/Buddhist/whatever teachings, which would later help to inform his own philosophy.

Is there any solid evidence for this? Or is it all merely speculation?

.. Making them the first people to do so before the 1953 achievement of Hillary and Norgay.

It was suggested to me that I submit the following here. I thought it was a good idea, so here I am.

I'm a bit fed up with people looking at history through 19th century glasses. That's when, as I understand it, the masses started to identify with the political entity known as the state and people were starting to be considered citizens and not subjects (I know, I know, this citizen-thing was known in ancient Greece and Rome, but only for free males of course). Before people were loyal to a regent, only later did they become more and more loyal to a political entity they were thought to be part of based mostly on ethnic markers (language, culture). That's when the modern nation states were actually born.

Nevertheless people today tend to implement these thoughts on the times before the 19th century without a second thought, as if the nation state and it's loyalties have always existed. "The French invaded", "the Russians subjugated", "the Irish starved" and so on. It's of course easier to handle history in this way, but it feels kinda like an anachronism. It is my understanding that the masses, who were largely uneducated peasants before the 19th century and industrialisation, did not see themselves as French, German, Swedes and so on. They had not yet been given the nationalist tools to think like that. They were much more local in their way of thought and as I understand it religion was much more a factor of identity back then. The thing with "being Russian" or "Swedish" was something for the upper classes, the cosmopolite nobles who were educated and indoctrinated in the interests of the realm. They were the ones that were responsible for the defence of the area that their king ruled, an area that the masses probably had no real clue about. I mean, who used rare maps back then besides nobles and kings who had vast areas to look after?

It makes more sense that nobles and maybe rich merchants might have used identities that correspond more with the nation state idea of today. Nobles were of course the class with power in society and history usually remembers them by name, but they were nevertheless a small minority of the total population.

So, three things.

1. Any thoughts on this?

2. Does anyone have good literature on the subject of identity of the masses before national romanticism?

3. I'm kinda restricted to Europe in this, but I'm curious to know if the development of the identity of the masses has been similar in the rest of the world.

What promises did they give to the german prince? What reform did they make since 1815 to be able to form the NGF and then Germany?

The natives of the Americas were nearly wiped out by germs that Europeans brought with them, like smallpox. They had no resistance due to lack of exposure, hence the staggering mortality rate. Why didn't the reverse happen? Why wasn't Europe devastated by some heretofore unknown germ brought back from the Americas?

While randomly browsing Wikipedia I stumbled across a section on Polish coats of arms, it seems like some of these coats of arms had specific battle cries associated with them. Was this something unique to Polish heraldry - which, from what I understand, is quite different to its Western European counterpart - or was it common in other parts of Europe as well? If anyone is able to tell me more about this I'd be much obliged.

Thank you in advance.

Bonus if there's a good documentary on the subject. Something about the seventeenth or maybe even sixteenth century? Thanks.

I know that living on an island and not being invaded by Napoleon greatly contributed to this, but why does every single other country in Europe has a system of civil law, instead of some other third system, or some closer to the UK*'s (with a stronger emphasis on case law)?

*Including Scotland only in part, since most sources says they have a "hybrid or mixed legal system" (involving both common and civil law).

Essentially my theology teacher at school was going on and on about how colonial Spain was much more kind to the natives and were only really interested in christianizing them, unlike the "dirty Protestants" from England who only wished to kill and push the natives of the land. I disagreed but held my tongue because I wasn't sure I couldn't definitely prove him wrong. So just how wrong is he and how can I prove such to him and the class. Bonus points if you talk about the California mission system because that was one of his main points. Thanks

Did they practice the same tactics portrayed in the Mel Gibson film "The Patriot"? For example, burning the houses and killing the livestock of those who gave quarter to colonial soldiers, killing families of militia, killing surrendering soldiers, etc?

[deleted]