I'm pretty sure conspiring to assassinate a foreign ruler is very illegal, yet to my understanding nothing ever came of it besides increased hostility between Cuba/USA/USSR.

Shouldn't President Kennedy and his cabinet have faced international crimes and faced charges?

Perhaps I'm being too much of a Roman fanboy, but the pilum seems to be quite the dreadful missile weapon, one I wouldn't want to see hurled at me before I closed with the enemy.

Why do we not see more use of this weapon in the dark/middle ages?

Edit: To perhaps interject my own speculation (I'm a fan of history, but no historian), I would guess that perhaps the pilum was dropped because of its weight, extra cost, training and perhaps losing of Roman Legionnaire tradition.

It's coming up to exam time and to finish the course (Crusades 1-4) in time my teacher skimmed through the reasons for the diversion to Constantinople pretty fast. I vaguely know it was one of three conspiracies:

1. A power trip for the pope.
2. Venician's wanted to expand their Empire under Dandolo.
3. Boniface and Phillip of Swabia wanted power of some sort. However, i feel like there is more to it than that, and all research I do seems pretty confusing, I was hoping for a succinct explanation which would help me if a question like 'Why did the Fourth Crusade divert to Constantinople?' came up. Thanks

I've been watching band of brothers lately. As paratroopers I would have thought they would all have smaller rifles, (Thompson's and carbines, primarily), but there are several with full sized Garands as well. Did soldiers get to choose their rifle? Also, who got pistols?

Was either the reports on the 2nd or 4th of august fabricated to allow the US to take action? Who really shot first?

I looked through the FAQ and re-read the threads about the relationship the Church has had with science through the years, but I didn't find anything specifically about anatomy or how it related to the development on what we know about health, could anybody fill me in?

I'm currently writing an essay on the British perceptions of Arab nationalism, and most of my sources are, as you'd expect, British. Specifically I've been using minutes from the House of Commons sittings and the monthly and yearly administration reports from Palestine (from Political Diaries of the Arab World- Palestine & Jordan). So the reason for my question is that I want to know whether the British were correct in their assumption that the unrest in Palestine early on was more due to administrative policies, and less a result of the Arab Nationalist movements (such as Pan-Islamism, the Sherifian Movement, or others).

Any all help would be appreciated. Thanks so much!

This question came to mind with the current Jeremy Clarkson media coverage. Black slaves in America came to America as part of the Atlantic Slave trade, whereby european traders would trade goods for slaves with african tribes, who themselves had many of their own black slaves. As a european, we learnt about the slave trade and the role of african tribes was mentioned as a key part of it, so I was wondering why we don't apportion equal blame to them as we do to the white slave owners/traders?

I didn't have much luck in /r/history, so they told me to ask here. As the title says, I'm looking for a good general overview of these cultures, preferably from the perspective of a modern historian. I've heard these cultures mentioned numerous times, especially by Greek and Roman sources, but I realized I don't actually know anything about these people other than where they lived. I'm always curious about the cultures of the classical world that are not Greek or Roman.

Thanks!!

I am writing a research paper and would just like to know where to start. Though I know their research methods were deplorable, I have heard that without their radical methods we would not know some of the things we do today without them. Who were the most infamous scientists and what did they do for modern science, technology, or medicine?

At some point after the fall of the (western) roman empire it seems we have stopped associating Augustus with being the greatest leader of a country and instead only remember Julius Caesar. Is there a known reason for this?

(I'm not a historian, which is why I'm asking here, and I'm wondering after listening to A History of Rome and hearing how ever emperor tried to associate himself with Augustus, a person who is not as famous as Julius Caesar)

Usually on the internet, it's mentioned as a way to show that not only Black people have been enslaved. What kinda of people were taken? Were the children of Arab slaves slaves for life? Were people from Scandinavia really kidnapped and sold as curiosities?

Obviously there were many who opposed it. But how many were willing to go along? Why where they so willing?

I find it hard to reconcile that men who respected human dignity and equality enough to abolish slavery could in effect sacrifice so many lives. Were there any other motivations for starting and maintaining the war for so long?

I was reading the article titled "Charter 77" and am currently writing a paper over the stance which the authors held. I am having trouble understanding what the political stance of the authors was during this time and why it is such? Any help would be amazing!

Edit: Charter 77*