I just got done watching "The Patriot " and a thought donned on me, in 1776, the colonists were not far removed from being British, so what did they sound like?

Edit: Had to repost due to issues, I apologize.

My interest was recently piqued regarding the performance of large artillery during extended use, especially the guns aboard battleships. I have been unable to find even cursory information regarding how heat affected the handling, aiming, and firing during, for example, an extended engagement between two battleships.

I'd imagine any concerns regarding barrel heat or wear would be disregarded during an engagement, but how did that affect the performance of the guns over time?

Did the barrels experience any warp after enough rounds were fired in rapid succession?

How long until a crewmember could safetly touch the outside of a barrel after it had fired in rapid succession?

Did heat affect the potential fire rate of battleships during an engagement or bombardment?

Any information or further reading would be extraordinarily appreciated! I'd love to learn more on this topic and how it was managed, or if it was even a concern! Thank you.

Trying to refute to my group of friends that someone could be coerced into being a Nazi Party member at risk of life or livelihood. Thanks for any insight.

Why was it plausible that Britain might come by land? Boston is a harbor town, and Britain is an ocean away...doesn’t this make it pretty obvious that they were coming by sea? Also, if they’re “coming” by land, doesn’t that mean they are there already and have been for at least some time?

I read somewhere that the arrival of English colonist in North America can be compared to an advanced alien civilization arriving on an Earth where a pandemic wiped out approximately 95% of the human population. A post-apocalyptic invasion.

How valid is this outlook, is it too hyperbolic? I'd assume it's the reason to why European colonist were able to drive eastward and why Native resistance were small scale.

As a German those news really shocked me as Canada was always portrayed to be so open and friendly on the internet and TV. I have little knowledge about the Canadian treatment of its natives, too, but from what I recently learned it was (and still is to some extent) really bad.

As more and more mass graves are uncovered, what are the current estimates for the total death toll? Will there be even more graves uncovered or could it be that this is the end of it?

And could all this be classified as a genocide?

Throughout history, especially during the Age of Exploration, there must have been plenty of times when two peoples met each other for the first time, and whose languages had never been translated to each other. How did scholars or ordinary citizens from both peoples go about understanding each other?

First of all, i absolutely loved the first season, it was very well done. i loved how Caesar was portrayed and how they showed his rise to power.

Julius has always been a man of interest for me, either good or bad he was a good politician and a greater strategist

My question is, if judged by the standards and morals of that time, was julius a bad person or good? and did he deserve the rather unpleasant ending he got?

i'm sorry if this breaks any rules, or has been asked several times. if there is any previous post about the same enquiry, or any good youtube videos , please feel free to link.

thanks, have a great day.

We Chinese, more than the British, are an empire of shopkeepers. My descendants would come to control the businesses world in much of the Pacific and SE Asia. Their control of money in these unequal, poor countries would lead to pushback from local communities, like strong affirmative action laws in Malaysia and race riots in the Philippines.

How did I and my cousins come to arrive in such numbers in countries that were colonised by western empires? Why were we the Pacific's shopkeepers rather than western colonists or Indigenous entrepreneurs?

What did I do to provoke such resentment in later generations? Was it my fault or was it the inevitable envy of success in a winner take all world?

This is a question I have a hard time articulating, but if anyone with expertise has any insight or reading recommendations, I would appreciate it!

When I watch documentaries or read about history, I can’t help but wonder if most people were affected by / aware of what is being described. The big thing that sparked this was when I looked at a map-over-time of empires in the middle east in ancient to classical times. New empires invaded every few years! Would poor farmers have known about that? What would have changed? I guess if you were a soldier or your village was burned down, you would know…

Random and poorly worded bonus questions I have had. Im sure the answers vary a lot from culture to culture, and maybe some are unanswerable:

• Were most people in history poor farmers? Or did lots of people in ancient and classical times live in cities?

• Without print media / high literacy, did people know what was going on / who was ruling them?

• Did average people take participate in religion and art? Did people decorate their homes? Were average people devoutly religous? Places that come to mind are ancient Egypt and ancient Greece - with such complex traditions, did most people know the stories and characters? Did average people way back in China or Japan practice Buddhism?

• Would life ever change when a fancy new empire came into town?

• History seems to be told a lot in terms of trade (or so I learned from Crash Course World History haha) - did average / poor people engage in that? Would a normal person living in rural Turkey have a silk scarf from China?

Thanks for reading! I hope this post is not too much of a mess, I love subs like this and think they are really valuable

Obviously there was a really large shift in what it meant to be an American, going from Thomas Jefferson’s ideal nation of farmers to one full of industrialized working class peoples and corporatocratic leaders.

Hiya,

I know just enough about Roman history to appreciate how much they got right about the spirit of the time. They made a lot of creative decisions sure. They changed a lot of characters to make them more salacious, like Atia who iirc was known for being pretty dignified irl. They used Octavia to tell a bit of the story of Octavian's grand daughter and the sexual revolution of her time. They made a lot of changes. But generally speaking I think they got what made the Romans tick.

The one thing that bugged me tho was Vorenus in Gaul. He has a wife back in Rome and so refuses to touch another woman. My understanding was that the Gallic campaign was especially brutal, with one third butchered and one third enslaved. Added to that was Rome's misogyny and the sadism of their troops, I just find it really, really hard to believe a Roman soldier would typically be so restrained sexually when at war.

How believable was this? Was it common for roman soldiers to abstain from abusing their conquered victims sexually?

How would other Roman soldiers act if someone behaved that way? Would it be seen as a sign of weakness or as a sign of virtue?

I’m more interested in conflicts between the two groups, but general diplomacy/foreign policy/trade relations would be equally fascinating.

I did some searching and found out that he was like 80% a direct descendant to Charlemagne, so did he have some sort of legal claim to becoming the king of France?

I've had several friends recommend David Potter's "The Impending Crisis" for its coverage of the late antebellum period and its assessment of the root causes of the Civil War. I've started it and am enjoying it, but seeing as the book is 45 years old now, I'm curious whether any of Potter's scholarship is in any way outdated or has been challenged or supplanted by other analyses of the era. Or does it still largely reflect current thinking on the matter? Thanks!

The treaty of Paris was signed September 3, 1783. Seems like that's the better independence day.