Old family myth claims royal Romanian blood from.... Somewhere. Just wondering if it's a possibility at all. All I know for sure is we were there a "long, long time" until the 1800s. Thanks!

Like Caesar, the soldiers that Washington commanded are apparently known to have been quite loyal to the man. But he lost so many battles during the Revolutionary War.

What's the deal?

As I understand, at this point the state's finances were equivalent to the ruler's (ex. a king would pay for ships with his own money). Would he have kept the gold in his castle, and if so, where? Or in a separate fortified building?

Not sure if this is the right sub to ask this so if someone could let me know that'd be great.

I guess you could make the argument that black people don't come from a single country but I don't see why a "Little Caribbean" or "Little Africa" type of neighborhood wouldn't be popular. Is there any reason why this type of neighborhood wasn't created?

Geographically, politically, culturally, were there differences? Where did that divide come from? The two counties still feel a certain animosity to this very day, how come? Is it all purely from that war?

Say about 500 AD, what would the daily life be for an average person living in a farming or fishing village? What did they eat and do, and what were their daily routines? Also, please let me know of any recommended reading on this subject. Thank you for any answers!

Also, why was everyone Ok with Russia taking all that land? Did they have to fight anyone for it, or did they just declare it all theirs?

I was recently reading about how Nietzsche praised Napoleon Bonaparte and how some historians of Philosophy believe that he thought of Napoleon as an Übermensch. This got me thinking about Napoleon. I know that he was the Emperor of France and that he conquered most of Europe but what was his real goal? Was he trying to protect France? Was he wanting to unite Europe? Did he want to spread certain ideals? If Napoleon had been victorious, what might his new order look like?

Commonly, genies are divided into four subgroups in modern fiction - the Marid, Silat, Ghoul and Ifrit - and this division is always assumed to have a foundation in arabic mythology. Even Wikipedia seperates these four into seperate articles and gives sources for each of them.

My question is how far this seperation is actually backed up by pre-Islamic mythology, Islamic scripture and Arabic folklore of the Islamic period. For example, an ifrit appears in the Quran when King Solomon has his palace built by genies (Sura An-Naml), but the name simply means "strong one". Hence, can "ifrit" not mean a "strong one of the genies", rather than a classification? In One Thousand and One Nights, the term appears to be used interchangeable with "genie", almost as a synonym, or, if we were talking about norse mythology, as a kenning. As for the Silat and Marid, I have not been able to identify any appearances in the Quran. Wikipedia gives the modern meaning of the word "marid" as "giant", but reading appearances of giants into the Qu'ran is apparently debated (Sura Fuşşilat). In any case, the "giants" of 'Aad are never described as genies.

The "ghoul" is just a different spelling of the "gallu" of pre-islamic mesopotamian mythology. I believe that this pre-islamic belief survived into the islamic era and contributed to the folklore of that time, is there any indication that with the arrival of Islam, the gallu/ghoul was subsumed as a type of genie?

I mean I've (very vaguely) heard about the Battles of Imphal and Kohima but I can't find much about the man credited with the victories. Also why is little said about the campaign as a whole? I've been told that Imphal and Kohima were the worst field defeat Japan's ever suffered (which is ironic as I've also been told that Singapore was Britain's worst defeat).

Instead he showed himself in even public... Never understood this...

Hi all, I'm here for some homework help or at least some direction. I would be very grateful if you could point toward sources that will help me with my research. I'm writing an 8 page paper (university level) on why so many people decided not to marry in late 16th and early 17th century England.

As per sub rules, I have done research before posting. I have found interesting literature (on JSTOR, for example) on why people married, the importance of marriage in terms of political and social status, the importance of childbearing, the role of women, marriage laws, divorce, etc., as well as information from my lectures. While this is all great information, I simply do not know enough about this topic to know what to search to learn about why people didn't marry.

I'm going to include this information in my paper, because I think it provides a good starting point to understanding marriage during this time period. But the bulk of the paper (reasons for not marrying) is what I'm having trouble with. I do know what young women in the Queen's household were not permitted to marry, or at least had to ask for permission for doing so and so I think lack of permission would have resulted in less marriages. In addition, I understand that marriage policies had changed due to the Protestant Reformation, making marriage a civil union instead of one carried out by the church. I am going to guess that such a change would have led remaining or secret Catholics to refrain from being married in such a way.

I hope worded all of this correctly and included enough information here. I probably rambled and repeated myself. I hope I haven't broken any rules. I figured posting here would make more sense than posting on homework help.

Thanks

I've heard that Tiro recorded three volumes of Cicero's jokes. Does any significant portion of these jokes remain? I don't seem to have been able to find a collection of Cicero's jokes on Google.

Inspired by the AMA today by Nichelle Nichols, who played Lt Urhura.