I was watching Pawn Stars once and heard it said that way back when, early peoples' water supplies became tainted and undrinkable. After a while, some people just started drinking beer because it was the only fluid around that wouldn't kill them. How true is this? If it is, could someone elaborate please? I'd like to know more.
4 Answers 2014-09-22
How were the Dutch still able to trade with the Japanese, and even be responsible for Rangaku, if Japan forbade any foreigner to enter the country, on the penalty of death?
1 Answers 2014-09-22
1 Answers 2014-09-22
I've looked at the FAQ but I'm still not satisfied with the answer. This question is mostly back in the Ancient times. According to the bible, Israelis were the original inhabitants of the land and even the place Jerusalem is included in the bible but since most of them were expelled, the land has been conquered by different empires and after that Palestinians inhabited quite a large portion of the land. I'm not sure if my information is correct or not but I want an unbiased answer of which group has the right of ownership of the land? I want an answer that related back in Ancient times not during the partition. I hope my question makes sense.
5 Answers 2014-09-22
I'm writing a Crusader Kings 2 AAR, and trying to keep it as authentic as possible. I'd like to know how would one "create" a ducal title, being a count. Currently playing as a duke in the HRE, if the region changes anything.
On another note: what were Margraviates and Count Palatines? How do they compare to common count/duke titles?
Thanks! :D
2 Answers 2014-09-22
"Old World" diseases devastated the native populations of the Americas, killing 95% of the population in some communities. Many of these communities also suffered from violent conquest by European settlers. I guess I'm curious if the second part mattered that much. If 95% of the U.S. died in the next year I assume that would be the end of the U.S., no conquest necessary. Would native communities have survived more or less intact without the malevolent influence of european settlers? Or were the pressures of european settlement simply the final nail in the coffin?
2 Answers 2014-09-22
I thought abbeys were monasteries or former monasteries (i.e. Westminster), but DA is a residence, so why is it called an abbey? Thank you very much.
1 Answers 2014-09-22
I've always heard him portrayed in a positive light in my limited experience, so I was a little surprised when I read this in my US history textbook:
...on June 26, 1917, the first contingent of U.S. soldiers, about 14,500 men commanded by the mediocre general John J. Pershing, disembarked on the French coast
Is there truth to this?
1 Answers 2014-09-22
Setting aside modern issues of private military contractors, I am interested in learning more about the time when private, for-hire soldiers were sometimes a major part of a ruler's army, fighting on the front lines and performing most (all?) of the duties of that ruler's "own" troops. First, did such a time actually exist, or is it a fiction? Second, what changed for that to stop being a viable defense policy? Why did mercenaries fade from the battlefield?
1 Answers 2014-09-22
1 Answers 2014-09-22
So as I understand it:
Serbians kill Franz Ferdinand
Austro Hungaria wants to attack Serbia
Russia is a protector of Serbia and so will get involved
Germany is allied with Austro Hungaria and will help them fight Russia
...
Why would France get involved at all and not just let the action happen in Eastern Europe?
2 Answers 2014-09-21
Ever since I read Grant's memoirs his short two paragraph argument about secession has stayed with me and often come up in my mind every time I hear someone mention the Civil War (or more recently about Scotland's vote). This is the argument:
"Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.
Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result."
Though Grant was hardly a lawyer or constitutional scholar, this has stuck me as being a very practical and clear explanation against the right of the South to secede. Is it missing anything? Is he wrong? In everything I've read about the Civil War, I've never seen anyone else say anything similar. Is that in fact the case? If so, why do you think it is mostly forgotten or obscure?
Thank you!
3 Answers 2014-09-21
Wouldn't it make sense to say "Fire at will!" as soon as possible? Individual archers would kill more people in the time spent waiting for the commander to say "Fire!" again and again. It's a confusing questions, I know, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while. Why not unleash hell at first chance?
3 Answers 2014-09-21
Were slings during their height about as effective as the current bow technology? Or were they more of a "poor man's" weapon?
Or, is it just totally apples and oranges?
1 Answers 2014-09-21
Would a senator or equestrian have "run" the military, with the Emperor as Commander in Chief, or was each legion law unto it's own?
1 Answers 2014-09-21
My understanding is that Latin had become the official language of the mass by around 600 CE, that mass was standardized into the Tridentine Mass in 1570, and that this continued until Vatican II in 1962.
As Vulgar Latin differentiated into the various romance languages, did the mass transition from being understandable to the broad swath of the laity? If so, was doctrine transmitted to the laity in some other manner? Would the typical mass have contained anything that was understandable to someone who did not speak Latin?
I am given to understand that the very well educated would have known Latin as well as their native tongue. I am guessing that the vast majority of the population would not have understood Latin, but is this assumption correct?
2 Answers 2014-09-21
Or if not, what kind of training regiments were there?
3 Answers 2014-09-21
I am talking about the one in 1941 here. In how was necessary for Germany to conquer Yugo?
1 Answers 2014-09-21
I've read conflicting things. If anyone knows, I'm also interested in where, when, by whom, and why they were written, though I expect that the answers to those questions are less clear.
2 Answers 2014-09-21
Not sure if this is the right place for this but I've recently come into possession of one of my great grandfather's records. It's from the 'International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink, and Distillery Workers'. It is called "Image of Freedom Record" and was presented at the C10(could be CIO, or CI0) convention in New York, December 1st, 1955 according to the letter that came with it.
I was wondering if it is of any historical importance or academic interest. And if this is worth making digital copies of it or loaning to it a local university or historian.
4 Answers 2014-09-21
This is the piece of paper that I've found. I don't think it's a color copy, the signatures look real. I don't know why this would be in front of my house though. It's dated "9 August 1945". I would appreciate any input on this.
Thanks.
4 Answers 2014-09-21