He beat up the women in his life so racism definitely wasn't his only issue. However is it possible he joined it for the connections/political influence and didn't take part in any racial violence?

I learned in school that WWI and WWII helped African-Americans get more equality and set up the patch towards civil rights. Was this also true for other minorities?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this. I would like to read some works on american history written by an outside source.

Hello AskHistorians,

Wikipedia hasn't helped out much, so I've come here. What exactly was the Landeswehr? I was wondering what composed it and what kind of weaponry it had. Was there a disproportionate amount of Baltic Germans in the army? Why was the Landeswehr so... unruly for the lack of a better word, since it attacked Estonia, an ally against the Soviets?

How did the Landeswehr come about? Did remnant German army units simply turn to Baltische Landswehr units as they helped the Entente in the Baltics after WW1? Or were they mobilized after the war? How did the Landeswehr compare to the old German army in quality?

I've been interested lately in Estonia's War of Independence, and I've been baffled by the circumstances involved, where Estonia had to fight both the Soviets and Germans to gain freedom for the first time in almost 8 centuries. It seemed like a very chaotic period, especially when it comes to dealing with the Landeswehr.

Thanks for the help!

Was it well known at the time outside of the US that this was going on? Was there much criticism (or praise?) of the practice from either its allies or enemies? I'd be particularly interested in the reaction in Japan, both in the government and civilians.

With the Ukrainian conflict being recently declared a civil war, I'm curious as to how the rest of the world reacted to the American civil war. How did our allies at the time react? Did our enemies bust out the popcorn and enjoy our infighting?

Did it sound similar to Arab or Grec or was it somehow unique?

British monarchs and princes earlier had openly kept mistresses and the like, so why did Victoria seem to treat it as being something so horrible that she thought it killed Prince Albert?

A writer named Stephen English wrote in his book The Army of Alexander the Great that the standard view of a "hammer and anvil" approach in regards to the phalanx holding the enemy in place is wrong, and that the Sarissa phalanx were intended to act offensively, rather than defensively, by attacking the enemy in conjunction with the Companion cavalry. He goes on to say that, once forced to fight defensively, the phalanx would easily be defeated.

What is your view of this?

I'm curious as to how slavery become abolished in the middle east and Islamic world. Did internal pressure lead to this or was external pressure more responsible? Did certain groups of slaves get freedom quicker than others?

Did it evolve into the Romantic languages that we know today?

I would also like to know if there was any data/surveys that were collected at the time on the demographics of wealth/prosperity in Germany during that period.

• Was there a barter system in place, or did goods hold an established value that moved with the ebs and tides of the local economy?
• How were coins measured/denominated out against one another? Were silver and gold king as far as purchasing power went? Or were other base metals used to extend the currency supply?
• Did a credit system exist between merchants or patrician families?
• Was there a established standard system of weights, distances, etc? Or did this vary from region to region across the empire/peninsula?

Thank you in advance!

This is outing me as a girl, and also an ignoramus about history, but I was watching some Jane Austin adaptations with a friend, and we were wondering how the people at the time made the money they lived on.

My specific questions -

• Was it realistic that everyone seemed to know that so-and-so makes "five-thousand a year!" or that marrying a certain girl would get you twenty-thousand?
• Where did that income come from? Rents from people living on their estates? Or were they supported by taxes trickled down from the central government?
• Did these people actually do work? Did they take part in the management of their estates? I fully realize that the books are intended as romance and social commentary, and so they would not focus on the dull details of day-to-day. But looking at Emma, for example . . . neither Emma nor her father seemed like the type to be managing an estate. Did they put all of the effort of running their estate into the hands of other parties, and just reap the benefits?
• Also in Emma, there is a family which used to be a family of means, but which were reduced to a well-bred family with no money. They were forced to give up their estate and live in a humble house in the city, with few or no servants. How did that work? What happened to their income?
• In Pride and Prejudice, on a visit around the country-side, a family (which otherwise seemed proper and normal by the day's standards) just drove up to Darcy's estate and demanded a tour of the place. That seems crazy to me. Like "Hey, let's drive up on to Wolf Blitzer's summer home and have the maid show us around!" Any insights here? If this was realistic, why was it customarily allowed?

Thanks for any insight!

edit: The answers to this question far exceeded my expectations. I love you guys. Seriously. I would marry you. It didn't even occur to me that there would be books written to sate my entertainment-driven historical curiosity.

I am wondering when was it realised that humans need to regularly brush their teeth in order to keep a decent dentition. My few research led my to believe that the Greeks were already doing so but was it a popular thing?

It seems that the loss of Varus and his legions meant Germany was lost forever but the Romans had shrugged off much worse before. Why was this so different?