The title really says it all. I can't recall ever seeing a depiction of a Japanese samurai or ashigaru warrior using a shield in popular media or historical sources. Were they ever used? And if not, why not? It would seem like common sense against arrows, which feudal Japanese armies seemed to make extensive use of.

I assume that they were designed without a keel and with their long shallow hull and extended mast how did they prevent them from capsizing. I am particularly interested in how they crossed oceans such as the north sea.

Wikiedia's article on the Battle of Ascaulum (sorry for bad spelling, Im on my phone and going from memory), Pyhrrus of Epirus brought some 40,000+ soldiers to the battle, and suffered 3000 casualites. How did the loss of 7% of his army prevent his capture of the city, and prompt his legendary comment (misquote, "Any more such victories and we shall be undone")?

I have heard quite often that China is the world's longest running/most continuous culture, but having read a number of Chinese history books I have a hard time believing that.

Of course you must first define what "culture," "contiguous," and then later "culture" means, but... assuming we're being generous, what thoughts do you have?

• Although you may find similarities in religion over time, was it always the same set/pantheon of gods and spirits?
• Although you may find (many) similarities in writing/characters over time, was it always the same throughout the traditional geographical core area of "China," and/or throughout the dynasties?
• Although you may find similarities in the language over time, was it always the same throughout the traditional geographical core area of "China," and/or throughout the dynasties?
• Was there always the same sense of cultural similarity within the core/traditional area of China?

I don't know what else defines a "culture" or "civilization," but from my amateurish knowledge of Chinese history, "China" has always been a diverse area (including up to today), with many different religions, languages, writing scripts, government styles, sense of identity, etc. So how can we say that "China" is a contiguous civilization? (It certainly seems more so than many others, but that still doesn't make it so).

I'm not talking about something like the Crimean annexation, but more like a major amount of land being taken through warfare.

So, I'm having a bit of trouble with a project of mine. Justice Louis Brandies was an American lawyer and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1916-1930. In 1890, he along with his partner, Samuel D. Warren, developed an article for the Harvard Law Review. In the article, he focuses on "the right to be let alone" and focuses on protecting individuals. The approach was in response to recent technological development such as photography and yellow journalism.

Now, what I'm stuck on is how he looked to add privacy as part of the Constitution and what amendments he emphasized privacy was part of.

Would one of the amendments he was trying to include privacy in be the first amendment? I've also been leaning towards the fourth amendment as one of them.

If any of you guys have any sort of links that I could read up on, that would be extremely helpful!

Were "confiscated" slaves freed or were they considered property of the Union like the rest of the confiscated estate?

If they were considered confiscated property, were the slaves ever sold off to slaveholders in the slave states that remained in the Union?

Was there an early de facto or de jure policy which amounted to an emancipation proclamation for slaves which were part of confiscated estates?

It's written in German, has a picture of "Mater Divine Gratae" in the first page (The Virgin Mary, I'm guessing), and from what Google Translate tells me it was printed in a monastery, "die 9. Januarii 1909." It is written "for" an "Albert Fachs | Hermanustadt | No 428. ust. Sehl". I don't know any German but I would be glad to give you some "chapter" names or passages if it would help. What is this, where is it from, and what's in it?

As far as I know, unlike WW2, it desen't seem like there was a clear ideological absolutism driving either the Central Powers or the Triple Entent to continue a "Total War" scenario. I'm not really aware of the diplomatic contacts the combatants had during the war, but were there any serious efforts to strike a ceasefire or conduct peace negotiations? In the grand scheme of things, it seems like there really wasn't a reason for either side not to.

Recently I've been listening to a Civil War podcast, and I've been surprised (though I shouldn't be) of how extremely racist a lot of the political rhetoric was prior to the Civil War in the arguments for slavery.

Most of the arguments were based on the supposed scientific "fact" that the whites were a genetically superior race, and were given dominance over the world, whereas blacks were an inferior race, given to serve the whites and to be passive.

Being an Eastern Orthodox Christian, most of our church's Saints, as well as many adherents of the Oriental & Eastern Orthodox churches, such as those in Greece, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Ethiopia etc... are all of a much darker skin-tone than Western Europeans.

The fact that many, if not most Biblical figures, including Christ and the Apostles, would have had a darker, olive toned skin color is seemingly very apparent. It absolutely astonishes me that many Americans at the time, of mostly Protestant background (and therefore many knew their scriptures back to front) would have a weird, overtly racist viewpoint that whites were inherently dominant over blacks.

Based on writings from the time, did white Americans ever realize that their God (Jesus Christ), and other figures like his Mother and the Apostles, would have all been darker skinned with black hair?

Or was this something they wouldn't have considered at the time, or would have been ignorant of? Or did they just assume that Jesus & Biblical figures must have looked like them?

Also, how did they reconcile the fact that many whites were enslaved in other parts of the world, and that it wasn't just blacks who were?

How did friendship and allies play a role?

He was freed on Washington's death. He had already broken 2 knee caps and couldn't effectively serve Washington. He had a free "wife" (in "" because it wasn't legally recognized). And he seems to have had a special relationship with Washington that not many people (certainly no other slaves) had.

So, why wait until death to release Lee?

Like it's ridiculous, they were expelled from Spain, massacred in Europe, hated in America. I mean, out of all the Abrahamic Religions, they are probably the least violent. So why do people have such a serious grudge against Jews?

While it's clear that industrial workers were officially favoured class of the Soviet Union, I would have imagined other proletarian classes would have also had some kind of official security under the communists. But it appears that peasants suffered most under Leninism and Stalinism. How was it justified to oppress and murder the poorest classes?