So I've been doing some research today on medieval maritime vessels for a game system I'm designing.

The thing is - there is not a lot of information on what goes into building those. That I've been able to find anyway(maybe my google-fu just isn't strong enough).
The manpower and the time and resources that such vessels require.

I'm not looking for extensive data(though that would be cool), just a good sample for all the sizes and types - from generic boats and small vessels like a keelboat or a caravel to galleys, to the large medieval galleons and the largest wooden enlightenment-era ships.

So if anyone here is an expert, or has some good resources to offer on the subject, please share.

Hi,

I've been wondering this for a long time, but I haven't been able to find much information on it. How long did French last in Arkansas and Kansas once they were no longer French territories? Did they have their own dialect?

Thanks guys!

Reading a few accounts of the American Civil War, McClellan's incompetence as a general is one of the common themes throughout. Time and again he overestimated the enemy strength and in doing so failed to utilize his superior numbers due to a fear of the deployment of non-existent Southern reserves. He failed to follow up on victories and crush the Southern army, and indulged in inaction to the point of driving Lincoln and his inferior officers mad. Yet whenever Lincoln challenged McClellan, and especially when the President relieved him of command, accounts state that his men rallied to him and even proposed marching on Washington. Whenever McClellan rode into town, men and women would gather to get a glimpse and to praise him. Why was this? Could the average soldier and civilian not see that McClellan was incompetent? The papers openly questioned the inaction of the Army of the Potomoc. Did the general population not put the blame for this at McLellan's feet?

I read about this many years ago but my memory is somewhat hazy; during a major event involving a US president (possibly an assassination or assassination attempt?), there was a situation with a tense standoff between the Secret Service and some other law enforcement agency. There was a disagreement and eventually the Secret Service pulled a gun on the law enforcement officers, forcing them to back down.

Anyone know exactly which situation I am thinking of?

As I understand it, many figures in the French Revolution (Marat, Hebert, Babeuf) wielded enormous influence among the lower classes of Paris, largely through the publication of pamphlets and newspapers. I'm wondering if there are any historical records of a) what percentage of the sans-culottes could actually read these papers b) how the illiterate sans-culottes would consume them.

We usually refer to these countries as the Axis, as if they were one big alliance during the War. But they didn't behave like proper allies (Japan and Germany/Italy). If they were allies, why didn't Japan attack the USSR from the east? (making them unable to send reinforcements to the west and probably making Germany take Moscow) and why did they instead attack USA, a country that Germany didn't want to see involved in the war?.

To me it looks that Japan did its war without any connection to the European Axis and that this "Axis" denomination dens't really make much sense, rather there were two separate wars (the Pacific and Europe)

I know the tribes on the eastern seaboard got them from the British. From whom did the western tribes get them?

I always laugh hysterically when he says this and then proceed to tear him a new ass hole. Is there any truth to that statement though?

Don't know if I put the question right. What I mean is, were there teams of people sent into Antarctica to study the animals there, and see if it (Antarctica) is habitable. I think I did read Antarctica's name in Moby Dick, but my question is about the British Empire.

''Mad Jack'' Churchill was reported to using a longbow and sword in battle in world war two. How was this looked upon by the British Army?

Would such a choice be open only for officers?

I visited Auschwitz this summer and something surprised me. In the original Auschwitz camp was a prison (a prison inside a prison). The prison was used for several things, one of them being a place to punish Jews, Roma etc who where forced to work. For example, our guide told that when a labourer peed without permission he could be punished. The prison contained, among other things, a starvation cell, sufication cell and standing cell as means of punishment.

I also learned that pretty much 75% of the prisoners that arrived where immidiatly exterminated. Punishment is a way to correct someone's behaviour. So my question is; Why would the SS take the time to correct a labourer instead of executing him and replacing him? It seems odd to want to punish and correct the behaviour of someone who you will execute a few months later anyway.