In many popular pirate movies, we always see the pirate ship pull up alongside its target to fire a broadside - all the cannons on one side opening up to rain hell down upon its hapless target.

I understand that there are lots of places on the side of a ship to place cannons, and that a broadside provides the largest target to hit (as these guns were fairly inaccurate). But what about when a pirate ship was in pursuit of another?

So I'm wondering:

1. Did sailing vessels have guns also pointed forward? Were they able to fire at ships attempting to escape ahead of them?
2. Were these cannons of any actual use?

I'm trying to write a semi-historically accurate story with pirates, and I want to make sure I get the guns right!

Hi all!

I wouldn't ask if I wasn't desperate! I hope you guys don't mind, I've tried all manner of google-fu and searching the Chicago Manual to no avail. Maybe it doesn't happen or maybe it's something I shouldn't do? Any and all help with me greatly appreciated!

Okay, real question here: In a footnote, I'm explaining the founding of a political party. I have information from one source and a quote on their M.O. from another source.

So it looks like this:

^5 Political party was founded in 1890, by some guy. They wanted to accomplish "this" by doing "all these crazy things."

Sentence 1 comes from one source, sentence 2 from another. How would I cite that whilst already in a footnote? Or should I stick to one source? My apologies if that's not very clear, but thank you so so much for your time.

Richard the Lionheart was notoriously enthusiastic about murdering Jews nearly wherever he found them, and massacred them and destroyed their quarter when he took Jerusalem. After Saladin retook the city he reestablished the Jewish quarter.

Is there any evidence Jews may have helped Saladin retake Jerusalem.

With regard to events post 1950's, let's discount North Korea, since it is very difficult to get a real sense of any vox populi there and the official Communist viewpoint is so full of bluster. I'm interested in the average, man-on-the-street viewpoint.

How serious is the bad blood between the two sides? Is it more down to recent events, ancient history, or both? Are there particular events, political moves, or diplomatic issues at play -- or is it more of a cultural misalignment? Is it genuinely a bad blood situation such as Serbia and Croatia, or more of a semi-good-natured rivalry along the lines of Sweden and Finland?

I am primarily interested in focusing on the relationship with regard to Koreans in Korea and Japanese in Japan and vice versa, not other expatriate populations.

I'm a second generation English person who has a Northern Irish friend who holds a lot of animosity towards English people, but it's not a subject I fully understand so I would find it something I would really tip-toe around in their company.

I would love to understand it a little better.

Also I was told it's a situation that can never be resolved no matter how far into the future you look. Is it hopeless and is there no possible peace.

It's a subject that rears it's head especially after a few drinks but I feel like I have to be quiet and can't add anything to the discussion because of how little I understand about it.

Please let me know if there's a better place to post this. Thank you.

My first question has to do with weapon technology of the armed forces during the period. As I understand it, earlier during the Merovingian period, they attempted to copy many aspects of Roman technology. Did this extend to weapons as well? Generally, how did the process of weapon advancement happen during these periods? If you can provide a source where I can find information myself, I'd greatly appreciate it.

My second question is in regards to population density. I'm sure it varied widely depending on which end of the period you're on, but if you could even simply give rough estimates as to how many people lived in towns versus villages, it'd be very helpful. Also, how was wealth distributed between the two? Did the wealth tend to concentrate around the rural areas, as it did in most pre-industrial civilizations, or were there social controls implemented?

My last question has to do with how the armed forces of the time were used to defend the empire. Were permanent, or semi-permanent fortifications erected? Or were they far more mobile than that? I'm really trying to get a feel for their problem solving, and how they felt was the best way to respond to different threats.

I am writing a dissertation on the Suez Crisis and decolonization of Africa and I can not find sources for this area. Where there other reasons besides WWII that caused Britain and France to grant independence? Thank you for your time.

In the past, I've tried to research family history at libraries and on the web, but usually only come across things for ancestry.com. Does anyone here know a good resource to find things like family crests, family trees, or anything like this?

Was it controlled by the Republican government? Or was it basically like an independent country (or multiple independent ones)?

How well were the armies in the North organized and equipped?

Also, were any major efforts made to connect the North to the rest of the Republic? Or if not, why not? Too strategically impractical or were there also political reasons?

Perhaps this question is strange…. But a smile is meant to convey some sort of social information. The information that is conveyed depends on the cultural context (e.g., a smile in one culture may convey information that won't be conveyed in another culture).

What is it about our cultural history (e.g., the West) that made the smile the requisite expression for a posed photograph?

From cross-cultural emotion research, I can surmise that Western culture's focus on self-esteem was influential. But I'm curious about whether smiling for a posed photo can be traced back to a more specific historical point.

I apologize if this is the wrong subreddit, but I figure some historical perspective will answer my question:

Why do so many people refer to "being Jewish" as part of their heritage (as well as religion)? You hear people say that they're half Jewish. But isn't that like somebody saying that they're half Christian? Maybe the person is Israeli, or Polish, or American. But why do some identify their heritage as Jewish?

I imagine there was a decent amount between neighboring tribes in a region, but what about between, say, the Sioux and the Iroquois or something like that?

Also, do we know how their works were received or considered by their contemporaries?

Why did they not conquer inland? Or why did their inland neighbors not conquer them? Argentina, Sweden, and Cambodia have all had great historical highs. Seems like they could have attacked the narrow strip of lands for better control of the sea access

Or if no generalities can be formed, say so!