Did they have street names? Districts? Suburbs? Maps?

This question was spawned by the larger question about two democracies going to war. In 1812, when the UK and US were at war, was the UK a democracy?

I realize that it's easy to nit-pick about the word "democracy", so I'll clarify: Was the UK roughly as democratic as the US was at the time (fully aware that neither is a "true democracy" even today)? If it wasn't, then what changed between then and now that transformed the UK into democracy?

Obviously, in 1812 the UK had a king and the US didn't. But the UK still has a monarch yet it's now considered a [representative] democracy, so that raises the question: after 1812, have there been any Acts (or other events) that drastically changed the power of the monarch? Or does the answer instead lie in the many reforms to the House of Lords? It could be argued that the UK wasn't a democracy because it didn't have universal suffrage in 1812, but by that standard the US wasn't a democracy at the time either.

I remember this question on the Daily Show when Jon Stewart interviewed Tony Blair. Blair insisted that the UK was not a democracy in 1812. So that's why I'm wondering what changed between then and now?

(standard apologies if this has been asked before; I couldn't find a similar question using Reddit's stellar search function)

I find that the army fought by the Prussians at Rossbach is consistently referred to as a "Franco-Imperial" army-- German sources sometimes refer to it as a "Reichsexecutionsarmee" (Imperial execution army).

At Leuthen, a few weeks later, the Prussians fight an army that is consistently referred to as "Austrian", but there were also regular Austrian army units in it, such as the Bretlach Cuirassiers who also fought a year prior in the Battle of Prague, in the Austrian army.

So, my questions: What makes the Rossbach army "Imperial"? I'm assuming it was somehow raised or sanctioned by the Imperial Diet? Were there any restrictions on the Habsburgs in their function as Austrian monarchs how these Imperial units could be used? The army was commanded by an Imperial Prince at Rossbach-- was that a requirement or could it have been led by an Austrian officer?

I suppose I'm just looking for an explanation in how these Imperial armies functioned in that difficult legal situation where the Habsburg domain and the Empire were almost--but not entirely!-- the same.

Thanks in advance!

What background would that hypothetical man need to have, would he have had been a soldier prior to joining, what type of training did he have, and how much training did he receive under the banner of the Templars?

So in a lecture a few days ago the lecturer put this up to show a sense of how far reaching British Culture was in the 1960s. However that post was a head scratcher since I havent read anything of culture being a major factor in the fall of the USSR.

The quote was by: Mikhail Safanov in 2003 in a book he wrote (no idea which) and another quote to add more info is, “It was Lennon that murdered the USSR”

It seems to be something a conspiracy theorist would say however it would be interesting i feel to read rebuttals of it.

I'm talking about 900-1200/1300 Both countries are similar, with the Carolingian Empire and Charlemagne as their mutual link/starting point. How exactly did they part ways so differently? Of how much importance were the slaves being a threat in the west for the germans in this?

In the title I meant France under the rule of a king, while Germany was under the rule of an Emperor and many princes btw. Were french vassals equal in power to a german princes?

I was wondering how far back in history people in the Middle Ages knew about. Obviously, they knew of the birth of Christ, but how much did they know of the Romans and their history? What of the Greeks? Would our hypothetical scholar know who Alexander the Great was, or know of the Peloponnesian War?

I was wondering mainly about the generals of the republic and early empire. Scipio Africanus and Caesar for example.

In Roman Judea, say around the time of Jesus' life, what are the odds someone wouldn't know how to read and write in Hebrew?

Title.

I've been reading up on my local area's history and a major staple of the economy of many cities in the region was tar. Why was it so important?

This was mentioned as fact in my International Politics class and it brought up a bunch of questions for me.

First of all, is it even true? If so, is it meaningful about the nature of democracies? It occurs to me that democracies have only been common for a very short amount of time in very recent history, namely post world war. I suspect that there is more to be said here about the nature of post-nuclear international history than the peacefulness of democracies. Secondly, just because no war has been declared doesn't necessarily mean that warfare hadn't been waged. (I remember reading once that the US has had military operations in every nation in the Western Hemisphere for some reason at some point in time, though I don't have a source for this, can someone verify/debunk this for me?) Third, not all democracies were created equal, and I suspect that in many conflicts one party would attempt to argue that the other wasn't "really" democratic. Whether they were or not, in the modern world democracy is seen as virtuous and I can see states in conflict using this as a way of discrediting their enemies. Am I correct in this assumption? Besides that, are there any other things I haven't considered?

I'm interested in any ownership of a slave by a 'abstract' entity. Slaves are typically portrayed as the personal property of a man who also happens to own a plantation. But were plantations themselves ever treated as corporate persons or business entities, and if so could the plantation's slaves be considered property of the plantation, rather than the plantation owner? I realize that is a rather fine distinction, but modern corporations own all kinds of property like real estate and intellectual rights that are separate from the personal property of the CEO. I'm wondering whether the idea of corporate personhood is old enough to have been applied to slave ownership. Alternatively, lets say a slave works as a janitor in the Virginia state capitol building. Does that make the slave government property?

In the popular view of history, "Chamberlain and the Munich Agreement" is a proverb about the impossibility of appeasing a monster. But suppose we try to analyze the decision-making processes in the lead-up to Munich, rather than the final outcome. What would be the specific mistakes made by Chamberlain, if any?

There are, of course, many who argue that Chamberlain made the best possible decisions (or at least understandable ones) given the situation at the time. It's noteworthy that the British public initially greeted the Munich Agreement with acclaim, as did world leaders. And Chamberlain did initiate rearmament, in the aftermath of Munich. Henry Kissinger, in Diplomacy, goes so far as to argue that mistakes made at Versailles and in the 1920s, together with public sentiment in the West, essentially made appeasement inevitable; that Chamberlain and other mid-1930s Western leaders "had no recourse but to drain the cup of conciliation to demonstrate to their peoples that Hitler could not in fact be appeased... it is doubtful that the democracies could have sustained the sacrifices necessary to win [a war over Czechoslovakia]... public opinion was not sufficiently prepared for the almost certain initial reverses of such a war." For those who disagree, what do you think Chamberlain's mistakes were, and why were they made?

Because live-in servants received room and board as part of their employment, were they able to save enough of their wages to provide for retirement, illness, or an injury that would prevent them from working? For someone like a governess, nurse, or nanny (who would eventually have to find another situation when the children had grown or gone to school), how would they find another job? Would a year of living in with a family as a servant be enough to pay for a year without a job?