I read the Wikipedia article on James Joyce and there is a mention of a telegram he got after his mother got ill. The telegram said "NOTHER [sic] DYING COME HOME FATHER" and it prompted Joyce to come home from Paris.

What if it wasn't sent by his father? How could he know? Was there such a thing as a prank telegram? Or could a telegram be used in another way, e.g. misleading or distracting a rival or enemy?

Would the defenders be enslaved, killed or set free?

So I was reading about the War of 1812 and I have one question- why wasn't Tecumseh's treaty with the British honored after he died?

For those who are uninitiated, here's my (very) layman's interpretation of events- Tecumseh was a Shawnee leader who formed a confederacy calling to unite the Native peoples of North America in order to take back their ancestral homeland and ancestral lifestyle and give up on European culture and goods. He was successful in uniting many tribes and there was a bunch of strife with the Americans. In the War of 1812, America was threatening to expand upwards, taking land that the British held. British people strike a bargain with Tecumseh- if he and his people are willing to help resist American forces, then they can have a nation-state to themselves. I believe 3 million acres of land between modern-day Ontario/Quebec and the mid-Eastern states. Tecumseh accepts.

So we know how 1812 goes. The British, with Tecumseh's help, keep possession of most of the land they had previously held and America mainly limps away to lick their wounds. Tecumseh dies, and with him his confederacy and dream of a Native American nation.

So what I want to know is- Tecumseh and his people played a pretty crucial role in the success of the Brits in the War of 1812, and obviously honored their part of the treaty. Why didn't the Brits honor their part of the bargain by giving land to the Natives of Tecumseh's confederacy? Did he not have an heir or contingency plan if he were to die during the war?

If anyone knows (or feels like correcting my knowledge of the War of 1812), thanks in advance for your reply.

Hi, amateur ancient Chinese enthusiast here. My favourite period is the transnational period from Late Warring States up until early Han. I've recently been raiding my university's library and ordering books online to satisfy my hunger for knowledge. From what I gathered, there is a booming amount of resources coming out from archaeological digs, especially census and legal writings, that is helping historians get a perspective from China's early days as an imperial polity.

I was unsurprised that academic output from China and Taiwan eclipses that from the West by a considerable margin.

My question is, just how much government control is there on academics to publish a "party-friendly" viewpoint on such distant period in Chinese history?

What is that current state in ancient Chinese historiography?

How much is coming out of China is academically worthy in comparison to those in English/ European journals?

If all the architects and the people who buried the Emperor Qin Shihuang were killed to prevent the knowledge of how to get in from ever leaking out to the public, how trustworthy are the legends and writings that describe the booby traps and the Mercury rivers? Knowing that the tomb will not be opened for a while, have archeologists and historians used other ways to try to map the tomb?

The US supported India in the Sino-Indian war and such, but not long after they threatened India with nuclear weapons during the 1971 war. What happened to cause the relationship to sour? And how is the relationship now?

We always hear about the grueling trench warfare that has come to define World War 1 in popular media. Why was World War 2 more fast paced then it's predecessor.

i'm kinda looking for a book that i could gradually read that would help boost my knowledge on events of the ancient Greece era's. not something like Herodotus that's heavy on the eyes but something that can just boost knowledge on events and who was involved sort of thing, does anyone have some suggestions?

For example, it seems after slavery we progressed to ending segregation, allowing interracial marriage, outlawing workplace discrimination, etc. Today, only a small minority would still agree that those against slavery were wrong. Women seem to be progressing in gaining rights similarly and very few would say they "belong in the kitchen."

For context, I'm curious about those adamantly opposed to gay marriage. In a matter of years, won't the majority of Americans support LGBT rights and gay marriage as it becomes the norm? And is it the case in the U.S. that those opposed to any specific group of people gaining more rights or equality typically do end up "on the wrong side of history?"

I really can't think of an example where this happened (i.e. most people don't think, "damn should have never given the disabled accessible parking," etc.

-Also I'm not trying to debate the ruling, I'm just wondering about historical precedent - thanks!

In the history of English/British imperialism, there are quite a few examples of colonies set up by chartered companies. For instance, the Virginia company establishing Virginia colony, the East India Company progressively taking over the subcontinent of India.

Were the efforts at colonial expansion always financed and authorized directly by the Spanish crown, or were there private ventures established in Spain to establish trade/colonies for the profit of investors?

Same question regarding Portugal.

So well, I have been playing assassins creed three and so far I have counted something like three or for forts (including one that I'm pretty sure is fictional). I would like to know more about these forts. What was there function? How many were there in the early days of pre-revolution America? How did they operate? I know that is a wide scope, but talk on one point if you can as I am open to many answers and this is a very broad qustion.

I love history and history books, but most out there recomended are about Europe or U.S. history. What good books are out there about Mexico's history? I would specially like to know about Mexico pre colonial.

It feels kinda crazy that every single member of the SS were terrible people, I was wondering if there are any stories of ones who weren't.

It seems like the the natural limit is between 10 and 15 years, US president Franklin D. Roosevelt at 12, UK Prime ministers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair at 11 and 10 respectively and Spanish PM Felipe González for 14 years.

Have any democratic leaders exceeded these amounts of time as leaders of their nation (either consecutively or non-consecutively)?

What enabled them to govern democratically for so long, whilst other leaders fall by the way side?

Is helicopter technology really that much more difficult to master than basic airplane technology?

My question is a little weird so I just put that simple title up, I'll try to explain more specifically below.

Obviously the goal in any fight is to break up or flank the other formation, but in the meantime the centers of the two armies are presumably fighting each other head on. Whenever shield walls are mentioned in the middle ages, it seems they fight each other with short weapons. Now as I understand it hoplites sometimes carried swords as well as spears, but if you were fighting with spears, it seems like the head on part of the fight would be comically ineffective. Poking at someone six to eight feet away with those massive shields just seems silly. I know VERY little about this, so maybe I'm just imagining it completely wrong. Anyway, just curious how it might have worked and how often they just switched to swords.

Tsushima Island is closer to Korea than Japan. Why isn't it in the Korean cultural orbit like Jeju?