When slavery was abolished in the United States, how was it enforced? It seems to me that some slave owners would not want to tell their now ex-slaves that they were free to leave. Was some sort of inspector sent around to make sure plantation owners complied? Or was there a penalty if they were found to still be owning slaves? Just curious in honor of Juneteenth

I was just asking myself how old the concept of buying food that has been prepared by the occupant of the place you went to is. I'm curious. There were markets as old as time where you can of course buy your fruits vegetables and animals from. So then there were also pastries, ready to eat dishes that you'd take to your family.

So when did people start sitting down? Who said "Hey, you could take this large pie to your family, or I could just cut a piece for you, serve it on a plate with a beverage, and you could just pay for your one time experience"? Which would lead to hot foods and larger gatherings. If that's even the way it evolved of course. I have no idea.

Plus, what does archaeology tell us about this persecution (e.g. the massacre in the Anglesey island described by Tacitus)- scope, death toll, etc.? Did druidism survived this persecution, maybe as an underground cult?

When it comes to non-Latin America, there’s really only 2 nations (excluding the English speaking Caribbean): Canada and the USA. Both were mainly colonized by the British. Why did Latin America, which was mainly colonized by the Spanish, split into many more nations? Why not like 2 or 3 as what happened to non-Latin America?

(non-native English speaker here)

I am thinking about starting to study Classical Japanese again. However, in the past I have always had a lot of difficulties in reading classical text, and later I realized it was because I am very ignorant about Heian-era culture and society, especially all the different ranks in Japanese courts and, more marginally, the role Buddhism played in people's lives. I am sure knowing more about these topics would help me immensely to read classical texts, since they are heavy on indirect allusions and similar stuff.

An ideal book would focus more on society and lives of people of Heian Japan, and less on historical events, but I don't want to neglect them, either. Do you have any recommendation for me?

I apologize if this question is posted a lot. However, there was a post on r/historymemes where they said that Greece pedophilia was not that prevalent contrary to popular belief. Many of the comments said that while man and boy relationships were relatively common, it often didn't lead to penetration since that was illegal, and if sexual penetration was given it was usually through the feet or thighs of the boys. I'm sure it varies from city state to city state but I would like to see what answers come here

The Crusades? Charlemagne's Paladins? Late Roman cavalrymen? Persian cataphracts?

The Crusades kind of seem like a sweet spot because of the larger than life adventures but its "heroes" were far from chivalrous. The Hundred Years War is sometimes seen as time of chivalry but Knights were already quite cynical and nostalgic of olden times.

Of course, as a myth, a real honest to God (lol) time of chivalry probably never existed, but when did the myth even begin?

I can't seem to find a concise answer on this. I was taught (Florida education system isn't the best) the soldiers and public didn't know about death camps until they were liberated. I watched the movie Judgement at Nuremberg and one of the main plot points is a widow of a Nazi general trying to convince one of the judges that the German people did not know. This reiterates what I was taught in schools.

But last night I watched The Great Dictator from 1940 and in that movie, there's newspapers that flash on the screen that give an update on what's happening in the war, and it seems very clear they knew what was happening to Jewish communities. If most of the death camps weren't liberated until 1945, did the world know about the death camps for 5 years before they were liberated?

Somewhat related question:

I've seen the question of whether American had got involved or not would have resulted in the same outcome for WWII but I want to know if the tides of the battle were already turning once America got involved? I was taught that the Axis' biggest mistake was the attack on Pearl Harbor and getting America involved in the war, but from my reading of history as I got older, I get the impression America wasn't the push that got the war over the hill.

I was taught the assault on Normandy was the 'biggest' factor in securing victory in the war, but if I'm not mistaken, the Red Army launched an even greater assault to the north which was much more impactful.

Can someone clear all this up for me? I keep finding conflicting answers.

when norse explorers reached Baffin Island and made a settlement in L‘Anse aux meadows, why didn’t they keep exploring south and made settlements in the valuable and resourceful US? and also, is the stone found in no man’s land with an inscription that reads the name leif erikson and the year 1001 legit or is it a false inscription made much later?

Save the this one thing, I do not know any particular fascination Nazis had with Buddhism which could explain the transition. I also feel a party built on the premise of racial superiority would be avert to using another culture's symbol.

I’ve read in many places that Mary was closely associated with the order. How did this come to be? They seem like pretty nasty fellows and I don’t understand how the cult of the mother of god comes to be part of a military order’s symbology.

Free ebooks are the one I'll be looking forward to.

I’ve recently started learning a “romance” language and it made me wonder why certain areas of the Roman Empire seem to have had Latin stick as a foundation of their modern language whereas other areas that were occupied or a part of the empire for just as long or longer did not.

I'm specifically asking about this part:

Soviet commanders encountered the doctrinal German response to a mechanized advance; the leading German units gave ground quickly, luring the enemy tanks into a line of antitank guns that always followed immediately behind the spearhead.

In David Glantz's "When Titans Clashed" about the very first days of Barbarossa. I've also seen this response to British tank advances in North Africa. So, I'm wondering who wrote this, what made them consider this idea and why didn't others also come up with it prior to clashing with Panzer units.

As far as I remember, Hitler didn't use all the air forces of Nazi Germany. But why? Fighting with all his might, Hitler would probably have been able to conquer Britain, albeit with more losses. But if he conquered London, he would have the entire British Empire and its resources. With such large reserves, he would have gained a great advantage in a further war with the Soviet Union and could have won the war