[deleted]

What I mean is, since it was such a stigma to be gay, it seems very unlikely that anyone would ask if someone was gay, or if asked, admit to it. So how could anyone find another gay person to have a relationship with? Since we know gay people used to be burned at the stake, it must have somehow happened, but I'm curious how it could have

I quote the article here: "Great Britain and the United States are each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River".

What is the significance and legal ramifications of shared access of the Mississippi, does this mean that the U.S government must always provide access to British citizens regardless of visa limitations (I guess I'm asking, today, can a British subject go to America, and claim Art. 8 as a free-entry card to the U.S via the MS river)? And is there a commercial element to the article (when they mean access, do they mean commercial access to fishing?)

[deleted]

Many people believe that Mcclellan had the opportunity to end the civil war at this battle.(1862 instead of 1865) He had enough men in reserves located nearby that he never used. Additionally, he gave Lee's forces ample time to retreat after the end of the battle. He even refused to pursue Lee's army for about a month which caused Lincoln to remove him from his position.

I'm more interested in Mcclellan's motivations but other information will be enjoyed.

I don't mean how they were related as I get that they were fifth cousins and distantly related. I'm more curious about the relationship between them and whether or not they were close because they were of different branches of the family and in opposite parties

I tend to avoid anything popular history like the plague unless recommended here or by another scholar, but Amy Chua's Day of Empire: How Hyperpower's Rise to Global Dominance and Why they Fall is a required text for one of my classes. I read her introduction, and am skeptical of her thesis. I think she puts too much of an emphasis on the importance of toleration within Classical Rome, and kept mentally screaming Spain when she stated an intolerant civilization cannot be a world dominant power; apparently she addresses Spain in a later chapter but I have yet to get there.

I was wondering what the professionals generally think of her work. Specifically the ideas, and the thesis rather than the book itself (I know the book is going to over-generalize).

In a non-history-related blog post today, I saw this claim:

When Jesus spoke of “walking the second mile,” he was referring to an oppressive Roman law that allowed a traveling Roman solider to demand that a stranger carry his pack for up to one mile. No doubt some of Jesus’ first listeners had been forced to do just that, to drop their farming equipment, fishing nets, or carpentry tools and carry a heavy pack, losing hours of work in the process. The law allowed the soldier to demand from them a mile, no more. Jesus told his followers to walk two."

Was there really such a law? Do we know of other instances of this law being used? Was this specific to 1st century Judea, or the whole Roman empire or across a longer period of time?

[deleted]

By tall ships, I'm referring to those prior to mainstream steam ship technologies such as Old Iron Side. I also would like to get an idea of what it used to be like in the old days in terms of harbor life with Tall Ships.

Thanks in advance!

Or is it the feudal land that is put up for sale? The latter wouldn't make sense from the grammatical structure, but the former confuses me more.

In the actual document that abolished feudalism, an excerpt from one of the articles reads "All perpetual ground rents, payable either in money or in kind, of whatever nature they may be, whatever their origin and to whomsoever they may be due, . . . shall be redeemable at a rate fixed by the Assembly". Are this the same issue? What is it that is being "redeemed"? What is "redeeming" in this case?

I've been researching for a while and have been tripped up but this. I only need a quick clarification. Thank you.

So after Friedrich Paulus' defeat at Stalingrad he suddenly becomes a vocal opponent of Nazism? Is this a case in which he is forced to say such things or was he saying these things with his free will? Or was he ashamed of losing such a major battle?

Also apparently at the Nuremberg Trials he claimed that those men captured at Stalingrad "were well" even though out of the 91,000 captured 6000 returned home! This also makes me think he was being forced to say such things.

ALSO (Finally, sorry) after WW2 he lived in East Germany, he died in 1957 and in his last will and testament he requested to be buried next to his wife in West Germany. Who he hadn't seen since 1942! (She had died in 1947) What prevented Paulus from seeing her after the war? Was it just the fact that Germany was divided?

Sorry that theres so many questions here!

There seems to be many aspects of Arkhenatens (and Neferneferuaten Nefertiti) life that, IMO, could easily have become the bible myths. The ATen for a start, Amarna (Eden) his followers trying to survive after he died could easily be the jews leaving Egypt, The biblical flood could be a severe Nile Flood. Is there any credence in historical circles for this being the seed for the abrahamic religions?

Was it linked to the switch to repertory opera? Was it developed in conjunction with vocal pedagogy or vocal science experts, or is it based entirely on musical needs?

I suspect it was something to do with keeping westerners and 'fascists' out, but was there any discussion about not letting its own people out, presumably never to return, effectively creating a prison society?

So the Romans didn't have a written constitution but their unwritten one was constantly evolving based upon the current beliefs of the time.

Did the fluidity of their constitution lead to their demise? With written constitutions there is much interpretation over the wording the spirit, the historical context, etc., however an unwritten one that evolves seems like it would lead to some form of corruption.