I recently visited New Orleans and took a historical tour of the French Quarter and one of the things that was mentioned frequently was that, for the time New Orleans had a very progressive slave code. Is there any basis for that claim or were they just attempting to white wash over this time?

I was watching some episodes of the west wing and the president in the series said that: "2000 years ago a Roman could walk across the known world with only the protection of civis romanus sum, I am a Roman citizen". Would this have been possible at any time during the Roman Empire? If so when and why?

It seems to me that if the space race were occurring right now (an impossible hypothetical, I know), there would be loads of fundamentalists talking about how it's not natural and that god intended us to stay on the earth, ad nauseum.

Did the Space Race generate any backlash from the fundamentalist religious community?

I live in the South... not the deep South... but deep enough to where people have trouble letting things go. One common thing I hear when discussions about the American Civil War get brought up is that the North didn't "actually win" the war; the war just ended. Can someone explain to me if this is technically accurate? Or is this just an excuse used by Southerners who don't want to admit that the South lost?

I don't know a lot about the Civil War, but my understanding is that the North had things won and the South was going to surrender, but the words "I surrender" never came out of Robert E. Lee's mouth. And I'm thinking if that's why people say "the north didn't actually win," it's almost like saying, "yeah, you scored way more points than me in our one-on-one basketball game, but because I never said that I lost means you didn't actually win." Is my thinking incorrect?

For example, how exactly does a ruling kingdom go, "Well, good going old chap, but now is the time you become one with the fatherland" and then annex all their territory? Wouldn't the people rebel?

An example would be personal unions, where for example the king of Austria ruled in Hungary but then decided to integrate them, or France-Brittany.

Another example would be a vassal states, would the duke be okay with giving up territory?

My grandfather was combat photographer (and painter) in WW2, european theater.

We have a huge number of photo albums full of photos that he's taken. What would be the best way to preserve these photos and ideally scan them and put them online for people to see?

My understanding is that there were confederations, alliances, and situations where one group was outright ruled by another, but were there situations where one person was the (king, chief, emperor?) of two or more nations that were at least nominally equal to each other? I'm also interested in knowing if my premises are completely off-base, so feel free to tell me that my question doesn't really make sense if that's the case!

You can also answer for middle names if you feel so inclined.

What the title asks.

Without help from France, do you see the revolution succeeding?

I know very little about the area the book discusses and having seen Holland's Rubicon eviscerated on badhistory I'm feeling cautious. Are there any particular flaws/issues I should be aware of?

It seem within a century of the founding of the Islamic faith, Persia's Zoroastrianism was virtually eliminated and her language blended with the Arabic language. what script did they have before the Arabic script and how did that change?

Persia is a proud culture with a great history and cultural importance. So why did they bend to the Arabs and their religion so quickly?

Marching songs such as the British Grenadier march or the occasional Prussian or French march were both famous and notorious back in the day - and still are - and had the power to incite fear into the enemy.

But were they ever used by a different faction, than the one it originated from, to incite confusion and fear into the enemy?

I.e the British Grenadier march used by, say, the Prussians to plant fear in French hearts?

EDIT: Or would it be too unpatriotic and dishonest to use the songs of the enemy or even your ally?

EDIT II: I should probably elaborate on the fact that I meant the marches to be played out of sight of the enemy, instead of in the open field as the colours of the ones playing the songs would most certainly give away the ruse.

I am also not limiting the question to warfare between 1700 - 1850, but to the use of marches and battle songs throughout all of known history. The example of ''The British Grenadier march'' is just for the sake of convenience, as most people interested in history most likely tend to know that one.

As far as I know, the reason that the English church broke from the main body of the Catholic church was because Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't give him one, i.e. a politics-driven decision rather than a belief-driven decision. However anti-Catholic prejudice eventually grew and their rights were restricted until the 19th century. When, why, and how did this change come about?

Is it simply because they did not like Britain? I was hoping for some more detailed information. Did they give Napoleon information?