I heard this factoid in passing on a podcast or something. If abortion rulings were basically a proxy for civil rights opposition at the beginning of the GOP's effort to make abortion a big deal, this would fit neatly into the things we hear about GOP's southern strategy and dog whistle politics. However, it's one of those factoids that's almost too perfect -- it fits my ideas about what the GOP is so neatly I distrust my own confirmation bias.

If this is a piece of history with verifiable records, it would be a useful point to add to conversations about how abortion became so central to US politics today, especially in light of current issues like the Texas de facto abortion ban. But if there is no evidence of that, it would be dishonest to bring it into the conversation, and I don't want to be that guy.

I've really been enjoying this podcast. It covers a variety of public figures and events from modern history, it's interesting, entertaining, and the host generally sounds like he knows what he's talking about and seems quite well read. Can anyone here vouch for this podcast's accuracy?

I was told recently, and I have no idea whether I believe it, that twenty years after the end of the US Civil War, the federal government encouraged miscegenation between the newly emancipated black population and the dwindling native American population.

Is there a basis to this? What's the history of intermarriage between these populations look like?

I know there were some interesting one off interactions or explorations like Gan Ying but I was shocked to read a reference to the Roman Embassy in Daqin in the late 100’s.

Did the average person in either empire have a common knowledge of the other culture or was this knowledge more likely limited to explorers, intrepid merchants, and the ruling class?

In 313 ad, the Edict of Milan made Christianity tolerated within the Roman Empire, and over the next decades later, the Roman Empire adopted Christianity.

How did Christian Romans view themselves and their country, given that it was the Romans who crucified Jesus? Did anybody during that time think it was odd or amiss that they were practicing the religion which the man whom they crucified three centuries ago started?

How did they view themselves, given that they were the reason for Jesus’s crucifixition? Did they write it off as “simply another time”? Did they call their previous leaders corrupt?

Whenever my mom talks about WWII and Japan, she always says stuff like “I know Japan did horrible things in the war, BUT Korea also did the same thing (war crimes and atrocities) in Indonesia, and they never had to compensate for it.” She said she saw a video about it sometime on the Internet, but I can’t find anything when I look it up. Can anyone help me find what historical event this is about?

The Russians invaded Poland pursuant to the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in mid-September 1939, just weeks after the Germans invaded. Why didn't this provoke the same response from Britain and France?

After his death? Was he known by that title in Greek and Persian, or is this an English invention?

I have a friend who speaks Arabic. He referred to him as Alexander Macdon, which I find fascinating.

I know they never have children but if they did, who was going to rule what? Would the first son eventually become the King of France and the second son the King of Scotland? Mary was an only child so if she had kids with Francis, one of them would have needed to take over Scotland after her death? I feel like this is a huge hole in the plan - did anyone think about this? Wouldn't their kids be (for lack of a better term) the property of France? It seems like such a big deal since she is an only child and would need an heir. It seems like an EXTREMELY flawed plan to marry a queen to a future King, when both are going to need heirs for their country.

​

Mods - I know we're not typically allowed to do what if scenarios but I hope this one can stay. I've been mulling over this for weeks and am still confused what the protocol would have been. Essentially, please don't remove this as my head is going to explode if I can't get an answer. It's absolutely driving me MAD!

As historians, we are told (or strongly encouraged) not to let the ideas and values of our present world influence our moral judgements about the past. No where is this truer than slavery. My question is that when the topic of slavery does come up in discussions with, say, laypeople, how do we as historians talk about the subject without coming off as a slavery apologist? Obviously I agree that slavery was a horrendous institution but how do we communicate that?

Did United Fruit receive support from the US government in overthrowing the government of Honduras, and where can I find more information about the “banana republics”.

The combat superiority of mounted archers seems to me like it is the most emphasized reason for the conquest successes of Jurchen/Turkic/Mongol etc. groups.

However I feel like I'm missing something. For instance didn't "settled" empires/states have horse archers fighting for them either through mercenaries or from tribes/settled groups living in their borders (Cumans and Magyars in Europe)? Pre-Liao/Jin these groups didn't seem to be fundamental threats to the existence of prior Chinese empires (although I could be mistaken here). Also Horse archery itself was also practiced outside of this region, like in Iran and Japan (Mamluks too I think), but I haven't heard of the practice as being integral to their successes. So how vital were horse archers to these conquests?

This is a huge region with a great diversity of people and languages, horse archery seems common among them, but the variation in levels of success at carving out expansive empires across different groups and time periods suggests to me that there were more important factors at play.

I recently finished listening to his podcast series Supernova in the East which I thoroughly enjoyed. He often discusses terrible events such as POW killings, torture, suicides, and much more. He makes the argument that while atrocities happen in all theaters and are committed by all sides, it was much more common by the Japanese forces. Is this a fair comparison to make?

I'm a law student interested in legal history as an academic field of investigation and, since I don't have formal formation in history, I would be glad if you could give some advices (if you can append bibliography or else I would be very thankful with you)