If Iam not wrong, Haiti was the smallest empire in the world back then, and I wonder if it was just because they wanted to sound more cool of if it had deeper meaning. The fact that they went from republic to empire to kingdom to empire to republic makes it even more weird - also why did they switched from empire to kingdom when they already had "Imperial tradition"?

I can see the attraction of a hybrid system such as several countries including Germany and New Zealand implemented, in which there are constituencies and also a separate vote for a party list. But the Knesset system is close to unique as far as I know, and it seems (in recent years - much less so in the past) to cause chaos and constant new elections. What was the rationale behind its adoption?

Would it, in November 1939, be possible to ship something to Finland by the Barents sea? At the time I believe they did have a coast at the Barents sea. The main point would be to bypass Germany and their tendency to capture shipments of arms going to Finland.

TBF I could ask the same question about the paper I suppose. We don't need to worry about the rocks.

If it's easier I would also be curious to hear what the origins of this game were. Perhaps it didn't exist until after scissors were invented.

I am also wondering if different cultures have their own versions of this game with different objects but the same rules.

In many medieval fantasy settings, and of course among park services and militaries today, the word "ranger" implies some kind of militant survivalist. But where did the term "rangers" actually come from, and what did they actually do?

Does the term "ranger" actually appear in any medieval texts, and was it a real profession outside of the Tolkien-esque fantasy connotations?

I'm currently studying the French Revolution and I have, so far, been unable to find a work written by her other than Letters on Sympathy. Any recommendations would be much appreciated as I need to find at least one to two more.

I‘m having an argument with somebody about this. I feel that the fight over the arguably legitimate line of succession in that show feels odd because it is lacking any meaningfully presented backdrop.

Its mostly about if first born girl or the later born boy is the legitimate heir, priority of gender or priority of firstness, both lines of argumentation are presented as equally valid. The debate is shown taking place in what feels like a vacuume, and as mere rhetorical strategies, and not as having much to do with broad stroke societal views about the proper gender for a monarch.

I think the show is lacking something in the presentaion of that question, but my friend says its pretty close to how those arguments would have felt around 1100 ad in europe.

Is there a sensible answer on who of us is more right?

Much has been written about the Prussian education system being created as a way to create compliant nationals that could work in factories or serve the purposes of the Nation-state. However, it seems that the Prussian system dates back to the XVIII century, well before the French Revolution or even the appearance of most modern factories. What was the original purpose of having a compulsory education free for everyone?

Like, in a certain way, you were far, usually a lot of archers, and have a weapon that can kill at a far good distance.

How actually usefull where archers? Did every army had a section of archers? How would they deal with flanking cavalary? Were shield enought to proctect against archers?

I understand their usefull in sieges, but i'm focus on field battles

I've heard of the english longbowman but would like a bit of more information on the matter

I'm a doctor and this never made sense to me. As far as I know, in every other country, once you're licensed as a doctor, your license is valid everywhere in the country. But in the US, I'm suddenly "practicing medicine without a license" if I cross state lines.

It seems like such a common trope in movies and plays and books, but has it ever actually happened? I can imagine it likeliest in small settings, like tribes or village fiefdoms, but are there notable instances of it happening on the scale of, say, a medieval nation, or a city-state?

From what I understand, Yoshinobu had gone to war somewhat reluctantly in January 1868 and surrendered not long after his allies deserted him after the bakufu's defeat at Toba-Fushimi; why did elements of the army accompany him to retirement at the Kan'ei-ji in the first place, and to what end did they continue to fight against the Satsuma-Chōshū forces for the next few months? For the other post-surrender forces, the motivations seem pretty clear – the Northern Alliance attempting to preserve autonomy for pro-Tokugawa domains and prevent a total monopoly on power for the Sat-Chō coalition; Enamoto Takeaki attempting to establish an autonomous haven for Tokugawa retainers on Hokkaido. But ostensibly, there seems to have been little reason to wage war on behalf of a leader who had essentially surrendered twice in the last 6 months, first politically and then militarily.

I've heard people claim that the only reason the modern world is supposedly against antisemitism, unethical human experimentation, dictatorships and what have you, is because the Allies (specifically the US) wanted to use them to denounce Nazi Germany, or because they wanted to distance themselves from Nazi Germany and the newly-discovered Holocaust. How true is this and for which things other than antisemitism?

And why were they assimilated so thoroughly (native speakers in the double digits, few continuing remnants of culture) instead of persisting as a distinct minority?

I've read that Churchill offered asylium to the ex-Kaiser in 1940, but he declined. Also, Churchill and Wilhelm met when he was still Emperor. What was Churchill's opinion on the former Emperor? Did he really think that Hitler wouldn't have raised to power if Germany was still a monarchy?

I asume most of the traveler's diet would be bread, since it was the biggest part of one's diet in general with dairy products in the second place, followed by dried meat and fruit. I'd like my to get more specific information, such as how was the food stored, who could afford meat and if there were any products associated especially with traveling? How about water or any other drink - what was the general drink of choice?

I have to study the history of the literature at my university and recently we've been dealing with some works from the middle ages. Most of the stories are full of displays of affection such as men kissing. Funny for a modern reader, especially if these are military men (knights) we're talking about, isn't it?

Later on, I came across information about once popular communal sleeping such as servants sharing beds with their masters of the same sex, that seemed to be the case for a long time.

All of this made me wonder, whether back then people were more accustomed to displaying affection or simply touching each other. When and why did it stop being the case? Personally, if I were to share a bed with a stranger, I'd bite their hands off. Would be great-...-great-grandma do the same?

After taking an Ancestry DNA test, I was shown some obvious inheritances such as Italian (mostly Central Southwestern), Japanese, and European/Ashkenazi Jew (I am aware of specifically German and Polish Jew ancestry). I also have traces of English, Welsh, and Scottish DNA (6-10%). The smallest fractions of DNA I have are of Cyprian, Greek/Albanian, and Egyptian origin. Based on historical migration/immigration (apologies if I’m using incorrect terminology), is it most likely that these traces come from my Italian ancestors?

Also, where could I learn about the migrations of people over time? I attempted to look on Wikipedia but the articles I read went right over my head, leaning very heavily into complicated genetic jargon that I’m not knowledgeable enough to understand.

If this is better suited for r/Genealogy, please let me know!