Not my intention to get into "what if" territory, but was there ever a plan B considered? What were the scenarios the British and American command were considering (the reaction of the USSR, the situation in Italy, etc.)?

So, the way I see it to have slavery and racism legally in your system it has to be viewed positively within the culture of a certain population. Or at least the culture of the leading class of population mustn't see it as something negative.

So, here is my question. Have the settlers of the southern part of US in 17th and 18th century come from vastly different places, comparing to the settlers in north, that they brought their own views which then enabled slavery and racism? Or has their culture (of which we can clearly see the consequences and differences even today) developed in different direction once they came to US?

I could understand such a big difference if the settlers to the north came from, let's say, place A, and settlers to the south came from some other very distant place B. But as much as I know about history the majority of USA in those days was settled from Europe which is why I don't understand from where this difference in views towards slavery and racism came from.

Pretty much the same people settled both parts of US (or am I wrong and there were differences of which I am not aware), and yet it lead to a civil war, and even today there's a big cultural difference between south and north.

So, what were the causes that lead to creating such a different culture in the South (which enabled slavery and racism) as opposed to the North if we have in mind that both regions were populated from the same sources?

I'm looking for any information on a group of people leaving their region and going on a mass exodus to another location. I would be mostly looking for something from 800-1800AD but any information is great! The key point is that they did it willingly and not under compulsion

Thanks

In today's world, we always hear about how teenagers cannot possibly be parents, and when we watch shows like Teen Mom, and we see how awful they are, its pretty much true.

But in ancient times, like Greece, the average age was (I think) 14 to be married off, and have kids with an adult man.

Knowing how teenagers can be self-centered and pre-occupied with themselves, no matter how much parents can prepare them for their upcoming family. How did they manage to raise children, and why is there such a stark contrast between them and today's teenage parents? Do you have any books recommendations relating to this topic?

To my knowledge, in modern history, much of the success of early North American colonization is attributed to the rapid spread of disease through the east coast that eviscerated native populations. Prior to this depopulation, what capacity would the natives have had to mount an armed, unified resistance to a concentrated European effort to drive the various groups back from the coast?

This is a very broad question, but due to this somewhat obscure topic (the medieval Jewish identity) I'd welcome any examples possible. To set some parameters, I'm interested in the Jewish communities of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, really from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the 16th century and the Protestant Revolution. Any examples whatsoever would be welcome.

Jewish "otherness" is a very old notion, seemingly present in every polity in which Jewish people resided. This notion of course facilitated the dehumanization, murder, and expulsion of Jewish people all over the world, particularly in Christendom. A post on 4chan (of all places) mentioned that the American Jewish experience was unique in that people were not Jews in America, but Americans who were Jewish. Despite this obviously completely non-credible source, I realized that this reflects what may be the implicit message of much media coverage about Jewish people. I was reminded of an interview with a person in Belgium, after last year's horrific attacks. They insisted that unlike most of their relatives, they did not identify as Jewish before they identified as Belgian. This surprised me, given that I don't think any Jewish people I know would identify as "Jewish first, American after". And one friend of mine, who was born in Britain and is Jewish, definitely considers his British birthplace to be the defining factor of his identity.

As a non-Jewish person, I can't really say how Jewish Americans, as a whole, identify. But this got me wondering about the medieval Jewish experience. Were Jews always seen as complete foreigners, even if their families had lived in a kingdom for centuries. Were Jews in 12th century France viewed as inherently distinct from the French people? What about in Poland or (to a lesser degree) Bohemia, where the Jews were not as persecuted? In pre-Reconquista Andalusia, post-Reconquista Algeria, and essentially the entirety of Egyptian and Mesopotamian history, Jewish communities flourished culturally, and some Jews were involved in government. In these four Arab Muslim nations, were Arab-speaking Jews seen considered to be not Arab? Were they considered more foreign than Arab Christians?

Lastly, how foreign were Conversos (and any other Christians of Jewish descent) treated? In the modern era, it seems that Christians of Jewish descent are almost universally seem as Jews. I don't think that most Jewish Americans would reject Bob Dylan, and despite coming from a Lutheran family Karl Marx is widely described as Jewish (often, quite horribly, by Neo-Nazis swearing to the immutable Jewish nature of communism). Was this true of medieval Jewish converts as well? Were Spanish individuals whose grandparents had been Jewish considered to be non-Castilian or non-Leonese?

Lastly, how did the Jews themselves identify? Maimonides seemed to view his religious brethren as a single culture scattered across two planes (the Kingdom of Yeshu and the Ishmaelites), but do his views represent those of everyday Jewish people? In 1200, would a Jewish person in London really feel more kinship to a Jewish person in Austria (or even in Egypt) than they would for a Christian person living in their own city? Are there any records of how Spanish Jews felt about their friends or relatives who converted to Catholicism rather than leave Iberia?

I know that they would have had access to at least olive oil, but wouldn't acquiring enough olive oil to supply several hundred soldiers be rather expensive? Or did they simply use unhardened leather?

Obviously, there had to be a translator for the two peoples. Who would learn the language of the other civilization? How would they go about learning the language? Would they live peacefully among their opposition to study the language? Or would they learn from a distance, like from books or texts?

Not looking for specifics but rather a general answer. Trying to work out if family size was fairly similar to families today, or if they were significantly larger.

Did Jim Crow laws that enforced segregation have a long term goal like Apartheid South Africa which wanted to make different countries for each group?

They undoubtedly lived at the same time, but the Incans and Mayans seemed to be quite a bit further along. And given their location one would have to assume they interacted at some point. If so, what was it like, peaceful? Conflicts? also I understand that they probably had the same or very similar origins, in that case did they know about eachother? Like we had a faction go north 100 years or so ago and they haven't came back.

I'm asking because I have a friend who maintains the Japanese navy was vastly superior and only lost because the USN had more ships and better air support. He also described the Americans using essentially zerg rush tactics and that's the only reason they won.

He is a bit biased being half-Japanese and I am as well for being an American from a Navy family so I'd like to find out how the two forces really stacked up.

I was thinking about trying to read the Prose Edda again and remembered this bizarre introduction in which the Norse gods were made into real people who over time were worshipped like gods. How common was this belief throughout Europe at the time of the compiling of the Prose Edda, and what were the motivations for doing this?

Hi All,

My background is in theology, and I was just recently accepted into a program for a masters degree in history.

My question is how essential is a thesis statement in a history paper? I have received different responses from professors, and they are mixed.

Would you say a good history paper requires an explicit thesis statement? If so, could you suggest any good resources as to how to formulate a good statement? I realize there are different kinds of papers I will need to write, so I suppose I am referring specifically to my required sixty page thesis.

I was reading about the Knights of the Golden Circle, and their plans for a pan-Carribbean slave-owning nation - did the CSA, during its brief life, ever try to create this country or give any thought to such things. Similarly, did the Confederacy ever considering colonization in Africa in order to secure their slave supply?

I gather from some other posts in this thread that Ancient Egypt was sitting over some of Africa's prime real estate, and presumably many outside powers wanted a slice of that action. So, how did the Egyptians keep their territory intact.

Did they have a professional army? Who joined it? What was its equipment. Was there a division between land and sea warfare? Was there a general staff?

Which was more popular?

How long would it be after introduction to the horse and gun before a tribe encountered Europeans?

To what extent did stories of Europeans precede their advance through North America?

Which was the last North American tribe to encounter Europeans, and what was the meeting like?

I'm referring to a Dan Carlin podcast I was listening to about WW1.

He said that the British Expeditionary Force were professionals — but weren't the French and the Germany army professionals?

What's the difference?