When Deloria writes, “why is a remote Indian princess grandmother so necessary for many whites?” and then offers white guilt and xenophobia, and the “white man” love of royalty as theories, he seems to take off his historian hat and become an armchair psychologist. He ignores the complexities of relations between whites and Indians, especially on the Pennsylvania frontier in the early 18th century. First, “whites” is pejorative that deliberately overlooks the very real and very important differences between Dutch, Scandinavian, French and English; Christian sectarian attitudes; and economic and social class attitudes toward Native Americans. It overlooks just how intertwined early frontier colonial and Native American life was, in favor of an easy answer. He also suggests that Jews don't claim Native American ancestry because they themselves are tribal, but to me, it seems more likely that it's because the bulk of America's European Jews didn't emigrate until the Indian wars were over.

I guess my point is that while I too have met many people who claim (mostly erroneously) that they have Indian blood, I think it has less to do with the reasons Deloria gives and maybe more to do with our frontier heroes' adoption of Native American customs and our strong oral tradition celebrating them. After all, Daniel Boone was adopted by the Shawnee and toward the end of his life he said, "'while he could never with safety repose confidence in a Yankee, he had never been deceived by an Indian,' and that if he had to choose, 'he should certainly prefer a state of nature to a state of civilization... I am very sorry to say that I ever killed any [Indians], for they have always been kinder to me than whites.'" (from John Mack Faragher's Daniel Boone 300)

Or am I way off base and should just shut up?

I wasn't able to find much info on this. I did read from a forum that armies, by 1812, abandoned teaching special firing drills to their troops in favor of front-rank fire only. Not sure if this is legit, as it was a gaming forum.

Did any of the armies during the Napoleonic Wars use techniques such as:

• Fire-by-rank

• Platoon fire

• Front-rank kneeling fire

If not, what were the incentives for abandoning these techniques?

I was taught at school that in WW1, UK and Commonwealth forces established cemeteries in France and Belgium because there were too many bodies to be able to repatriate them all in a timely fashion. Is there any truth to this or is the process of repatriating war dead a recent phenomenon? What happened to soldiers killed in, say, the Crimean War?

In the same vein, when did it become common practice to inform next of kin?

Was there really a dog king named Saur of Norway in the 11th century?

I can find a few blog posts but no real sources?

Thanks!

Did the Wehrmacht regularly commit rapes on the female civilian population during their occupation of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and other Soviet territories?

How about the Red Army?

I put Domitian forward as he was a stern administrator, personally oversaw the administration of justice, limited corruption, was a prolific builder, had a successful relationship with the army and managed finances better than the sources tell us (Suetonius+Cassius Dio). I have sympathy with him because as a child he lived through the short civil war of 69 C.E. and witnessed how subservient the senate had become as they confirmed Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian as emperor in the one year. Surely some level of disillusion with the senate was imparted on Domitan who throughout his reign mostly ignored them (hence the hostility in the senatorial aligned histories).

However, I'm interested in how much revision can help redeem princeps like Gaius Caligula who I haven't studied in depth but I've heard had some redeeming qualities (like organising most of the preparation for the annexation of Britain which Claudius concluded).

Perhaps we should exclude princeps who ruled for less than 6 months? Like Didius Julianus and the numerous short lived usurpers of the 3rd Century.

References for Domitian:

Administration: Suetonius¸ Life of Domitian 8

Justice/Limiting Corruption: Suetonius¸ Life of Domitian 8

Building Program: Suetonius¸ Life of Domitian 5 + Jones, *The Emperor Domitian p.79-80 + Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.1

Finances: cf. Alston, Richard, Aspect of Roman History, AD 14-117, Psychology Press (New York, 1998). p.188-189, Rogers, M.R., Domitian and the Finances of State, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 33, H. 1 (1st Qtr., 1984), Syme, Ronald, The Imperial Finances under Domitian, Nerva and Trajan, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 20, (1930) pp.55-70 and Jones, Jones B.W. The Emperor Domitian, Routledge (London, 1992) pp.74-75

Army: Suetonius, Life of Domitian 17 and Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.3.3

I have seen Churchill quotes favoring Greece's heroism and heard that by being forced to allocate more resources than expected due to the Greek resistance Hitler was under powered for his Russian Assault.

That tiny head just looks so wrong. Is it some sort of proportion trick like the columns of the Parthenon?

Katanas?

Medieval swords of all kind?

Etc

I'm led to believe that this difference of opinion is what led to the Austrian-Prussian war.

I think I have a basic grasp on the two Schleswig-Holstein wars but am having trouble finding the reason Prussia and Austria went from helping eachother beat up on the Danes one minute and warring only a couple years later -- all I can find easily is that it had something to do with disagreement over the territory they took. Also, for bonus points, is there a particular reason Austria got Holstein? It just seems odd.

Hi all, I have been doing some reading (fun book: The Human Tradition in Colonial Latin America) on the 1600's period, especially in Brazil. The readings have been clear that bureaucracy ran rampant during the inquisition, and punishments were often not that severe. It seems like it was more of a big show than a serious attempt to eliminate native religion, although of course some inquisitors were very serious.

However, I'm having a hard time finding any readings that make the argument that it was ineffective.

I would like to back up my thoughts, or have alternate evidence presented that would change my mind. Anybody know where I should look?

Cheers!

Specifically their focus on meritocratic governance or attraction of foreign talent and industries.

Obviously the French played a large role in the American Revolution, but were there instances of other Europeans moving to America to join the cause? Were there any recruiting efforts from Franklin or other Americans in Europe at the time?

Other countries included as well. The reason for driving a car on the right and driving a car on the left side always puzzled me. Why did this occur? Did the US want to the different?

Looking at correspondence from FDR and from the British royal family I was struck by the use of "scotch" to refer to the people of Scotland. Today that usage seem archaic and the word appears to be used almost exclusively for Whisky having been replaced by Scot or Scottish. When/why did this happen?

Did they just follow coastlines and judge the distances by eye? Looking at some ancient maps they're not perfect but they have a lot right. Any help would be appreciated.