As stated in the title, I am asking if people in France ever moved to America to fight in the American Revolution. I have looked around online and found articles stating that the French populace was generally in agreement in that the American Revolution was a good thing and since enlightenment ideals would have started to spread at that time it make sense. Also France would have been somewhat bitter towards Britain, so I think it would make sense that some die-hard revolutionaries would have moved to America to enlist but I have not found anything so far stating this to be possibly true.

Full disclosure, I just finished Taxi Driver and the characters reference the fact that the city's a terrible place to live with lots of crime. I know it's been discussed many times before and it's well known that it was at its worst at the end of the 70s and in the early 80s. I want to know two things: Was it really that bad, and, if so, why?

I love learning about various culture's myths and stories but haven't been able to find any good books besides a few on Greek myhtology that aren't too in depth. What are some books that you would recommend that I should check out?

Were war crimes common on non-german, non-russian civilians?

I know it reads like a homework question but I promise I've been out of school for a couple years now. I'm just not sure how else to phrase it.

I came across a lovely internet argument a couple weeks ago with: Protestants accusing the Catholics of Idolatry because of the Eucharist. Atheists accusing Protestants and Catholics of Ritual Cannibalism. The Catholics accused the Protestants and the Atheists of being ignorant. I'm pretty sure the Catholics were right but only because ignorance seems to be a major part of most internet arguments. More importantly though the argument left me no closer to understanding what the Eucharist has meant to various groups throughout history.

I understand it may be asking a bit much for people to be experts on the Eucharist from both a Catholic and Protestant perspective. Helpful information about any single group or denomination would be much appreciated.

Please. No fighting, No bigotry.

Hi! So I'm looking into doing a Museum Studies or Cultural Heritage program possibly in the UK and I was wondering if anyone currently in the museum sector had any advice for me as I'm delving into this grad school search. I would appreciate anything especially about specific programs or universities (I'm looking in particular at Durham or the UCL)

Curious if there was anything analogous to the dice games of the ancient Mediterranean, games like poker, mahjong, etc. If so, what do we know about these games?

Is he really being historically accurate or is he basing much of the book on speculation?

Is his book "good history" or "bad history"?

In movies and shows whenever there's a siege scene with the soldiers climbing up ladders propped up against walls it always looks incredibly difficult. I wonder how many casualties was acceptable to justify the use of ladders? Were they a last resort or only used in armies where a high death count was not an issue?

I know of the priest who protested but were there any in Spain who spoke out against what they were doing?

His tutor I know was Aristotle who was one of the most famous of the ancient Greek philosophers, but how much did his teachings along with other Greek philosophers such as Plato and Socrates influence his beliefs and actions throughout his life.

Have had these questions for some time now regarding the 'Death of Yugoslavia' --

1. Is it fair to say that the violent unraveling of the Yugoslav state had much to do with the fact that, it was in the end, an untenable and artificial entity wrought together and held up by a manufactured and misplaced sense of brotherhood among fairly disparate nations? My reading is that Tito was selfish and even megalomaniacal to hold together the Yugoslav state solely for his own personal expediency. No wonder, it all unraveled rather violently as soon as he was gone. Is Tito as much, if not more to blame than all the actors who took center-stage post-Tito. In other words, was the Yugoslav state forged by Tito a disaster waiting to happen from the very beginning.

2. How is Tito viewed by the people of the former Yugoslav state now? Will history count him as someone deified during his life only to be discredited and cast aside after his death?

3. Are the new countries better off for having gone their own separate ways? Is any of them doing substantially better? Any substantially worse? Those doing worse -- do they have themselves to blame or did they get a raw deal somehow? Those doing better -- did they just get lucky?

4. Bonus question. Is there a parallel for this debacle from among other countries around the world? Particularly India?

I've noticed that a lot of country of the world have a coastguard that is militarised or is part of the navy. However I cannot find any reason why Britain did not militarise its coastguard.

The only reason I can find is that the British coastguard grew out of the customs department rather than the military but it still has a lot of connections with the navy so I'm still not sure. Its possible that Britain felt secure enough in its borders to purely focus on search and rescue.

Any ideas?

I've seen that in some movies. Most of them did it most likely due to the visual special effects. But there was one movie (I can't remember the name) where the archers were first using burning arrows, but then one side used "normal" arrows. The enemy couldn't see the arrows coming and were not able to protect themselves with their shields. This act was deemed scurrilous. Did such a ethical code really exist?

@POTUS had his first tweet today, and I was surprised by the tone.

"Hello, Twitter! It's Barack. Really! Six years in, they're finally giving me my own account."

I know it's just a joke, but it made me wonder: how often and when in history have US presidents made excuses of the sort 'they won't let me' especially when 'they' is vague.