I took Eric Foner's edX Civil War class and he mentioned Seward had a plan to have the Union try to take Cuba from Spain, and that this would force the South to join together with the North for a common cause. Is this true? Was this just an idea of Seward's or a serious proposal?

I heard he died in the Senate and the theatre of Pompey, I know the Senate got burned down after Clodius' funeral, was the theatre of Pompey acting as the Senate house at the time?

Was it like a prank or something?

I've read that a possible explanation is that an “X” is a stylized representation of two mouths kissing, while the “O” represents two pairs of arms coming together to complete a hug, but also have heard that many people in the Middle Ages could not read or write and would sign important documents with an “X," which was both a simple mark to make and a reference to the Christian cross.

Is there any validity to this?

I'm British and only know the basics of Prohibition. I have a few questions.

What is the origin of the prohibition movement? Why was it successful in taking hold? Were there any vested interests?

How widespread was drinking alcohol at the time? How acceptable was it to drink alcohol?

At the end of prohibition, did any of those manufacturing alcohol move permanently into the alcohol business? Do any famous brands have origins or ties to the prohibition era?

Nowadays we see genres of music such as Folk, Pop, Rock and as such that are very different from each other. But when we see music by Beethoven, Mozart, operas, etc. and we categorize those as Classical music. This might give off the impression that music wasn't so diverse back then.

I was wondering if there are examples from news reports or fictional dramas that show attitudes or perceptions of the different Axis countries during WWII. I am most interested in Japanese perceptions of their European allies and vice versa.

Was there any propaganda effort to build camaraderie between the two peoples? Did they see each other as militaristic, or victimized? Was there a shared philosophy?

I'm currently studying the law of my own country and beginning to appreciate how significant historical events have molded legal process into the way it operates today. Given that the UK mainland hasn't been occupied by an invading force since 1066, I'm curious to know how German occupation during the Second World War effected the judicial functions of such territories - particularly long-term occupied nations such as France.

What changes occurred to the judicial systems of German-occupied territories? Were judges expected to give effect to Nazi legislation (such as that regarding Jews) and if so, was this carried out in practice? Are there any residual effects of these changes that remain operational?

Thank you in advance for any information!

Hello! I'm currently writing the script for a play set on board a cargo ship just before the first opium war, and while the script in its current form focuses largely on jingoism and national pride, I also would like it to be as accurate as possible. I have a few questions, namely;

1. Prior to the First Opium War, was opium being sold to China directly by the UK Government, or where they private sellers?
2. What was the general public's opinion of opium at the time?

The other questions are more semantics, but

3. About how large would the crew on such a cargo ship be? Do you have any useful links specifically to the ins-and-outs of life aboard such a ship?

I would greatly appreciate any help on the matter. I find the subject and time period deeply interesting and often completely overlooked.

I'm about halfway through Dan Carlin's Hardcore Histories podcast. Episodes 50 to 53 cover WW1. It's a brilliant telling of the major events of WW1 from Carlin who admits he's not a historian. He tells us of tens of thousands of people dying in single days of the combat, especially at Ypres and Flanders etc. He mentioned that on Christmas 1914, when the Germans and Allies decide to not kill each other for a short while, one of the first things people do is try to bury some of the bodies that are rotting. Apparently the stench is so bad that soldiers can smell the battlefield before they can see it.

My question is, what happened to all those bodies after the war? Did people go out and bury them? Or were they just left to rot? Are there any reports/evidence of disease that spread due to soldiers essentially living with dead bodies for extended periods of time during the extremes of the trench war?

I'm currently in the process of writing a report on the student dig this Summer. In this report we have differentiated between Scandinavian and Continental pithouse. During a "Back From the Field"-presentation, a professor mentioned that there was evidence of a chronological, rather than a regional, difference in the sunken featured buildings in the late Iron Age (Viking Age). I haven't been able to find much, if any, litterature on the subject. This have been on my mind for some time, as it could possiby help date our SFBs. I hope you can help with this.

I get this impression that history is portrayed as something violent, brutal, warlike and oppressive while prehistory is a peaceful and awesome sounding Neolithic Revolution in technology etc. focusing on production

Is it because historians focus on written texts, which is often a letter like "I declare war on yo ass lol" and prehistory is mostly interpreted by archeologists who in their diggings they find mostly tools and stuff, so they focus more on peaceful productive technology?

Generally if sometheing is called an Object Culture is it prehistory and archeology and if a people has a name it is history?

I mean, when something is called Funny Looking Large Clay Pot Culture by, I presume, archeologists, do historians link it with history and say "oh yeah that is ancestors of Germanic tribes Tacitus described"?

Is there any reason to see European prehistory as something nicer than Ancient history? Like where Bronze Age and Iron Age slowly flowed into actual history, did violence or oppression increase or decrease? Would life in the La Tène culture be more brutal or less brutal than what later in history was called Celtic Gaul, pre-Roman Gaul?

Richard J. Evans argues the above statement, and cited Deborah Lipstadt in asserting that postmodernism's extreme relativism has left the intellectual door open for far-right interpretations of history that creates a false consensus by falsifying facts or omitting evidence. The relativistic approach allegedly makes it possible for Nazi or fascist interpretations to be considered just as equally valid as those of academic historians; he claims that postmodernist relativism "provides no objective criteria by which fascist or racist views of history can be falsified".

Furthermore, Evans argues that the increase in intensity and scope of Holocaust denial in the past 30 years reflects a postmodernist intellectual climate where scholars deny texts have fixed meaning, argue that meaning is supplied by reader and in which attacks on western rationalism are fashionable.

Now, I can see how total relativism is a slippery slope that offers no protection from distasteful interpretations like Holocaust denial, but does his claim that the rise of contemporary Holocaust denial is directly linked to postmodernist theory really hold water, or is it just histrionic polemic?