I recently found out my great great great grandfather, Richard B. Foley was the captain of the "Flat Top Copperheads" during the Civil War. Or F company of the 151st Virginia Militia, a Guerrilla Warfare unit in Flat Top West Virginia who spied on the Union soldiers for the Confederate forces. Atleast now if the Animus is ever invented, I'll have something interesting to relive.

I'm trying to figure out more about this man and his actions during the war. I read about the Battle Of Clark's House where he and his men ambushed a unit of union soldiers when they stepped outside roll call. In which he was wounded and couldn't fight anymore.

Apart from that and 2 possibly 3 pictures of him, I can't find anymore information.

Does anyone have anything else?

Seeing how the bow and arrow was the weapon of choice in ancient japan, why did they never use shields? 'Most other societies used them at that time.

I'm asking primarily among people of means who could afford to consume the full range of available medieval meals, rather than people who subsisted on whatever was cultivated locally. How much does what they ate resemble what we can get today?

As a side question that may edge a little bit too much into speculation (but it doesn't fit in /r/HistoryWhatIf either since it kinda-sorta involves time travel), how would these people react to modern mass-market food? How would Charlemagne feel about a bacon cheeseburger or a fried chicken on his plate?

And if not, what most commonly would happen to the town and its people?

I know that there was a period where celibacy was not really a trend in the catholic church, so I am asking more about the actual period where it was expected to remain celibate.

The reason I ask is because the very idea kind of disturbs me that monks or those involved in the Church did not pass on their genes. It would be like as if today all scientists and academics from Harvard, Stanford, MIT etc. could not have children thus reducing those smart genes over time.

I understand that during the 1956 Suez crisis Egypt was defeated as it was taking on three nations at once, two of which were the Britain and France, much more powerful nations than any Middle Eastern nation at that time, but why did the Arab and Muslim states, oftentimes banding together, lose these subsequent wars? As I have seen in my reading, it was an embarrassment for the Arab states as they were always far larger in fighting numbers and possessed then-modern and highly capable Soviet weaponry, and yet they were unable to stop the Israelis from capturing the Sinai, occupying the Golan Heights, advancing near Cairo and even shelling Damascus. It seems that they were unable to meet them on the battlefield as equals, and it doesn't make sense to me why they couldn't.

Specifically, were they seen as healers? Used for the laying of curses? How did they spend their day?

Hi there, everyone. Funny that I'm asking a question, since I'm usually the one to do the answering...

I'm writing an AAR for a strategy game (I know, my life is really exciting) and it concerns an alternate history Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. I need to find the name of the German ambassador to France around late 1934/early 1935. I've searched both Wikipedia and even the archives on the website for the German Foreign Ministry, but I can't seem to find anything on the ambassador in this time period. I don't want to create a fictional guy and I'd rather not make it a guy that served the post at a later/earlier date.

Any help would really be appreciated.

Tthe Qing dynasty is often also referred to as the Manchu dynasty. There is sometimes a more or less explicit assumption that there was a racial or ethnic based opposition to them (for instance I found leaving the queue hairstyle for instance mentioned as an act of rebellion at the end of the dynasty).

Is my understanding that there was a racial or ethnic tension with Manchu holding power valid correct or do I read too much in the use of Manchu to designate the dynasty (i.e. is it just a convenient nickname for the dynasty but the ethnic aspect more or less rapidly dissolved)?

If my understanding is correct, I've three additional questions:

1. Were all Manchu favoured or just a subgroup of noble and military?

2. The Qing dynasty seems to have kept most of the traditional meritocratic administration system used by the Ming. How did it integrate the power structure of the Manchu?

3. What would be a good reading for a non historian (in French or in English)

On a military view, The Romans would no have to constantly stretch there army and would have a much easier time maintaining there boarders or expanding further into Russia. And would have a much easier time in the middle east as well.

The Carthaginians were a very strong empire. Would it not have been more beneficial if they both allied with one another?

Also were there differences when it came to Americans of distinguished class like the family of the US Ambassador versus an ordinary sailor? Were US students allowed to attend the University of Tokyo? Was there discrimination against fellow Japanese who associated with Americans?

Did George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc. all have British accents?

He's estimated to have created 1700 words in English, has anyone else done similar?

In England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to the end of absolute monarchy in favor of a constitutional monarchy. Liberal philosophers such as John Locke had a great influence on how these events turned out.

Why didn't liberalism ever pick up in the same regard in Russia? The short-lived Russian Provisional Government indicates that there was not a lot of support for founding a republican society and the Communist Bolsheviks ended up with the majority support. Was this outcome due to a lack of liberal leaders like Vladmir Lenin or Leon Trotsky? Perhaps there was a mistrust of liberalism, which by the early 20th century had lost it's initial glamor?