In a conversation with one of my history professors, the idea that the allies did not have the functional range to carry out targeted bombings was brought up. Was this the case? Or was the concern more about collateral damage to the prisoners?

edit: Thank you all for the answers, this gives me a lot more research to do!

Loaded question, my apologies.

I grew up on a ranch, and I typically envision treatment of slaves in the South like I would envision treatment of cattle by ranchers, which I understand to be a pretty apt comparison. Ranchers are actually really selective with the way their cattle breed (they typically get vets to perform abortions if there's an unwanted pregnancy), so I was curious to see if slaveowners were the same way with enslaved African Americans, or rather, how different it was.

Nova Scotia was acquired in 1713 and Québec was acquired following the Seven Years War. Why didn't they, for example, follow the lead of the thirteen colonies and revolt against the British crown?

Hello. So I ask this question because I'm a fan of fantasy and world-building and am currently writing some of my own lore. However, I did very little history in school so have been left with a lot of questions.

I have a list of Emperors and each are named like so:

Antiath Ahk'Taurus Avathar Ahk'Taurus Xanturi Ahk'Taurus

Ahk'Taurus being the second name and therefore the line of Ahk'Taurus.

However, how do names like Elizabeth II come about? This seems strange to me and I don't exactly understand why they continue the first name. Is this the same with all royalty or could I still have my characters having separate names?

Thanks.

He says quite a bit things that I find interesting, but unverifiable. I'd really appreciate any help on this, I'd hate to smell bullshit and not know it.

People from areas with winter and summer could count the winters passing to know how many years have passed. Have people who lived in areas where winter and summer have almost no meaning managed to count years? If not, have they used some other measure to count the passing of time, or even not paid attention to large time units at all?

I am interested in learning more about the social history and historical development of rap music. Can anyone recommend good literature written by historians, anthropologists or other reputable sources?

Even if Japan wouldn't unconditionally surrender, it seems like we had weakened them to the point where they were no longer a threat to us, and therefore it was no longer about defense; or put another way, it would not be a just act of war (I realize this is a philosophical claim).

Was it just popular opinion that we had to have the 100% unconditional surrender of Japan? If so, why? It seems like the best solution was to not invade and not drop the a-bombs. So many lives could have been saved.

Thanks for answering.

EDIT: I realize this type of question is asked a lot, but I haven't seen a post that specifically addressed the question of a-bomb vs. invasion as a false dilemma. I am really interested in knowing why we were so dead set on invasion and 100% unconditional surrender when the war seemed won.

Hello Ask Historians! I apologize if this question has already been asked, but a hasty perusal of the FAQ and the search function didn’t really reveal any particularly similar questions. I also recently finished reading the ‘myths of conquest’ series on /r/badhistory, and it kind of blew my mind to realize the colonization of the new world not as a series of absolute events, as I had previously conceived it, but as an ongoing process that lasted until the 20th century. My question pertains to how exactly the Spanish created a bureaucracy that could maintain their presence in the ‘new world’ and Asia on three continents for 300 something years, as well as effectively continue the process of colonization, as well as fund just obscenely expensive wars in Europe. It seems insane that an early modern bureaucracy could be created out of the seeming chaos of the early new world colonization that could effectively rule for such a long period of time! The Wikipedia article on the subject goes into some depth on the captaincy generals, viceroyalties, entradas, and Audiencias, however how the Spanish crown at the time arrived at the decision to create these institutions isn’t really covered. It’s only really mentioned in one tantalizing line:

“After the end of the period of conquests, it was necessary to manage extensive and different territories with a strong bureaucracy. In the face of the impossibility of the Castilian institutions to take care of the American affairs, other new institutions were created.”

What I am interested in is whether these institutions emerged Ad-Hoc, like was the crown just making this stuff up on the fly, or was there careful deliberation as to how to create methods to keep the new territories under control of the crown? Were existing feudal institutions in Spain adapted to fit the new world, or was feudalism already a thing of the past by the early 1500s? It also seems like a number of the institutions created have significant overlap, with the treasury, Audiencia and the viceroy/captain-general all overlapping at points. How was it decided which institution would control which aspect of administration? Were there ever jurisdictional wars between the colonies and within colonies to determine who would do what? How did the crown ensure that a governor would stay loyal to the crown and continue to send their tithes along to the homeland? The Wikipedia article hints that Jesuits, among other groups, pretty much carved out personal fiefdoms within the new territories that paid only lip service to Spain, how were these groups brought to heel? Did the Spanish empire maintain standing troops both in the homeland for fighting continental wars as well as in the colonies to fight colonial wars? As a final question, did the colonial administration even really ‘rule’ in a viceroy-as-a-representative-of-an-absolute-monarch-sense the territories they claimed, or were they more a series of loosely organized groups that operated with the cooperation of the native peoples in the territories claimed?

I apologize for the torrent of questions, but the ‘myths of conquest’ series really blew my mind! I am also posting from my mobile device, so I also apologize for any formatting or spelling errors, and I will fix them once I return to a desktop. Sorry about that!

I'm particularly interested to know how democratic and representative was the Supreme Soviet (and the soviet system in general) during and after Khrushchev. Thank you.

During medieval times, sodomy was punishable by death. By definition, sodomy did include all acts that would not directly lead to (healthy) procreation, such as bestiality, homosexuality, incest - and also cunnilingus and fellatio (afaik only between unmarried couples).

My question: Is there any record of an actual execution of someone because of what we nowadays might call "mere" forplay activities? Did the church / the authorities really bother enough about maidservant Hildegunde sucking off stable boy Diethelm after getting drunk at the local fair to execute them?

Just watched Amazing Grace and got swept away in the emotion. However, I tried to research what that law/act/bill thing was. They prevented the nasty French sailing under the USA flag of neutrality that would prevent pirates attacking them (why did a flag stop pirates?)...but, how does this stop 80% of Brit slave ships sailing?

I also want to know what historical inaccuracies were in the movie but I think I can google that. If you know any decent links, that would be great.

As far as I know, Austria inherited Burgundy, and a few years later boom, the Spanish have it. How did this happen? Was it an inheritance?

I was wondering, and thought that it might have something to do with the technological advancement of the time and culture.

Historically speaking, is this possible to clarify?

Are there any maps showing his military expansions?

In general ?