I know the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the whole Bleeding Kansas debacle was a prelude to the Civil War, but it seemed like it got settled in favor of Kansas as a free state (and therefore anywhere north of it would have to be a free state too or else be noncontiguous with the South).

And in 1860 the most unfriendly-to-the-South position in American politics was the Republicans' and Abraham Lincoln's position of forbidding slavery in all the territories and containing it only to the existing slave states.

But since Arizona (not great land for plantation agriculture) was the only territory the Confederates apparently even tried to claim, why was this position even worth seceding and fighting for? What would've been so bad from the Confederates' perspective of even maximal Republican demands being implemented? They'd lose Arizona as a potential slave state and that'd be about it. So what?

I've heard that the drinks of choice at the time were mead, wine etc and unless the mother had access to a fresh water source or drank milk, she would be drinking alcoholic beverages around the clock.

Obviously they didn't have a way to diagnose it or even recognize that (probably) every baby born had issues. Are there records of any babies born with issues or anything of that nature? I've always wondered about it but I don't know how to word quite what I mean.

More specifically, I'm thinking during the period of the Cold War (at least that's when I think most of it took place). For example, supplying drugs to cartels or weapons to the taliban.

Hello there !

I've recently played Railway Empire, it's a game that takes roots in the creation of railroads to link the East Coast to the West Coast. In this game, each player plays a different private company that owns stations and railroads.

However I wondered how much of it was realistic and how much was simply there for gameplay reasons. I know the essential facilities doctrine didn't appear until the beginning of the 20th century, so I imagine there was no way to force a private company to allow another company access to the station it had built, however was it really common for a city to have several stations owned by different companies ?

Or was the competition more geographical ? (as in, one company was connecting Dallas to L.A, another New York to Detroit or whatever).

I apologize for the potential mistakes in there, english isn't my native language.

Like what year did people such as Homer, Buddha, etc, think the year was? Could Julius Caesar have thought he lived in the year 8900, or were they completely unaware of dating?

For reference, here is a of landlocked countries and their nominal GDP per capita for 2021 estimated by the IMF

All landlocked countries nominal GDP per capita:

1. Liechtenstein: $179,258 (UN 2019 estimate)
2. Luxembourg: $131,782
3. Switzerland: $94,696
4. Austria: $53,859
5. San Marino: $49,765
6. Andorra: $40,887
7. Czech Republic: $25,732
8. Slovakia: $21,529
9. Vatican City: N/A but estimated to be $21,198
10. Hungary: $18,075
11. Kazakhstan: $9,828
12. Turkmenistan: $9,032
13. Serbia: $8,748
14. Botswana: $7,817
15. North Macedonia: $6,657
16. Belarus: $6,487
17. Paraguay: $5,146
18. Azerbaijan: $4,883
19. Moldova: $4,638
20. Mongolia: $4,172
21. Armenia: $4,125
22. Eswatini: $3,710
23. Bolivia: $3,624
24. Bhutan: $3,296
25. Laos: $2,773
26. Uzbekistan: $1,775
27. Zimbabwe: $1,684
28. Nepal: $1,236
29. Lesotho: $1,178
30. Kyrgyzstan: $1,123
31. Mali: $983
32. Zambia: $974
33. Uganda: $972
34. Ethiopia: $952
35. Burkina Faso: $876
36. Rwanda: $821
37. Tajikistan: $810
38. Chad: $741
39. Niger: $633
40. Afghanistan: $592
41. Central African Republic: $552
42. Malawi: $432
43. South Sudan: $315
44. Burundi: $265

Africa:

• Botswana: $7,817
• Burkina Faso: $876
• Burundi: $265
• Central African Republic: $552
• Chad: $741
• Eswatini: $3,710
• Ethiopia: $952
• Lesotho: $1,178
• Malawi: $432
• Mali: $983
• Niger: $633
• Rwanda: $821
• South Sudan: $315
• Uganda: $972
• Zambia: $974
• Zimbabwe: $1,684

Asia:

• Afghanistan: $592
• Armenia: $4,125
• Azerbaijan: $4,883
• Bhutan: $3,296
• Kazakhstan: $9,828
• Kyrgyzstan: $1,123
• Laos: $2,773
• Mongolia: $4,172
• Nepal: $1,236
• Tajikistan: $810
• Turkmenistan: $9,032
• Uzbekistan: $1,775

Europe:

• Andorra: $40,887 (UN 2019 estimate)
• Austria: $53,859
• Belarus: $6,487
• Czech Republic: $25,732
• Hungary: $18,075
• Liechtenstein: $179,258 (UN 2019 estimate)
• Luxembourg: $131,782
• Moldova: $4,638
• North Macedonia: $6,657
• San Marino: $49,765
• Serbia: $8,748
• Slovakia: $21,529
• Switzerland: $94,696
• Vatican City: N/A but estimated to be $21,198

South America:

• Bolivia: $3,624
• Paraguay: $5,146

As you can see, Switzerland ranks third among the wealthiest landlocked countries, and even sixth among the world when it comes to nominal GDP per capita. The only two landlocked countries ahead are the micronation of Liechtenstein, which is often referred to as a mini Switzerland, and Luxembourg. What makes Switzerland particularly wealthy, when throughout most of history, lacking access to the sea correlated with lacking access to wealth?

I actually don't know much about why the crusades happen, a cut scene in a video game I was playing recently complains that Muslims were preventing Christian pilgrims from visiting the holy land. Did that actually happen or did the Christians just invade because they wanted to?

As far as I'm aware, alcohol was used by humans for a long long time as a way to purify water drawn from unsafe sources (and obviously also to get drunk). I was wondering therefore if the ban on consuming alcohol had any impact on public health?

I had always imagined the former, but I realize the viking Longships and battle of Svolder were contemporary with Galleys in the Mediterranean who fought using rowers.

Were there any differences between Northern naval tactics and those of the Mediterranean during 1,000 CE?

I have been told East Rome mounted catapults on their larger ships during this time. Where these effective in naval combat, and where they common?

I'm looking for a book that covers the Gothic tribes' involvement in the fall of Western Rome and what came after. I've found a couple of books by Heather and Halsall (Empires and Barbarians, and Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, respectively) that look like they cover what I'm interested in, however it looks like their target audiences are academics, which I am certainly not. I suspect those books might be a bit dry or over my head.

Does anyone know of any books that cover this subject and are approachable to those casually interested?

I'm a peasant in during the middle ages. My count declares war and raises me as a levy. By what means am I informed that I'm going to war? How am I trained? How long does it take for me to see combat? What is my next 24 hours like?

I am sure there are differing opinions on this but I’d like to know what you historians think.

I'm not entirely sure if this is perhaps too meta for the subreddit, but I reckon it's appropriate.

I was recently watching a video published by Oxford university that mentioned 'cutting edge historical research'- which made me double-take somewhat, as I don't really understand what research a historian does can be cutting edge. Does it involve finding new sources? Are old ones reinterpreted? If so how different can it be?

I'm looking for something that will cover both the political strife between factions and the actual events of the war. Is there a book that covers both reliably? Is it better to search for books on the two topics separately?

Learning about the history of islam I get the impression that early muslim scholars were right down obsessed with Aristotle.

They would write book after book discussing his ideas, they would even write books commenting each line in Aristotle's books. The only other work that gets this much attention in islam is the Quran itself

Even more, I guess that if someone were to count all the books written by muslim scholars since 700 AC to 1600 AC there would be more books discussing Aristotle than the Quran, or at least, it would be pretty close

All of this makes me question: why?

Sure, Aristotle was a very influential philosopher, I get that, but it seems he was more influential with this group of people in this period of time than ever before or since

I also know that Aristotle was also very influential for Christianity, but I get the impression that Christian scholars had a broader interests in philosophers and they didn't focus nearly as much in Aristotle as Muslim scholars did. But of course I might be wrong, maybe all of them were obsessed with Aristotle

Women's suffrage was granted. Abortion was legalized in 1920, making the Soviet Union the first country to do so (though it was banned again between 1936 and 1955.) In 1922, marital rape was made illegal. Maternity leave was legally required, and a national network of child-care centers was established. The country's first constitution recognized the equal rights of women. All of this came in capitalist countries much later.

Was it only because the people were far more conservative then and since the USA, UK, etc were democratic countries, the politicians listened to the people which was simply not an option in the USSR. Or was something else at play?

Is there any truth to this claim, or was it just baseless slander? Were there any diplomatic relations between England and Morocco in that period?