It seems like we all know about MLKj and Kennedy, but are there any crazy or interesting US personalities that were killed for their beliefs that have fallen under the historical radar?

It seems like during his era, whenever territory changed hands in Europe, it did so in small amounts at a time; the Partition of Poland took 3 wars with 3 world powers taking a small amount at a time. But then Napoleon came along and demanded huge tracts of land from his defeated enemies in a single war. What changed?

(Resubmitted since I accidentally a word in the originals title)

With all this talk of the blood moon I was thinking how crazy would it be to be a person alive in 3000 bce about to fight a war and seeing the moon turn red.

Sorry if the title could be better. If a mod deletes this, could you please suggest a better way to ask the question. Thanks :)

Today, a lot of people in the West have a negative view of the Crusades for a variety of reasons. When did the perception of the Crusades change?

So I was listening to a radio sermon on the Roman guard who, according to Scripture, was set to guard the tomb of Christ.

So, this isn't a religious question, but the preacher was mentioning that the Roman Legionnaire's were the most disciplined soldiers of the day. If they fled from battle, the punishment was execution. If they fell asleep during a night watch, the punishment was execution.

Is this true? Were there any other (what we would consider) harsh punishments?

A quick search found that the populations of China, Japan, and South Korea, are all very homogenous, with nearly 90% of the population being the same ethnic group. Why is this so? Doing further research, I've found that travel between the Japanese Archipelago, Korean Peninsula, and Chinese Mainland occurred often enough that the paths couldn't have been too treacherous for travel. There was limited diplomatic relations between Japan and China by 57 AD. Japan sent imperial envoys to China many times, and had sent large military forces to the Korean Peninsula to fight the Korean kingdom of Silla. Thus, movement between the countries wasn't technologically impossible. So why hasn't there been large scale population movements in East Asia, similar to the Period of Migration in Europe? Why aren't there significant groups of minorities and a lot of ethnic mixing?

The closest example I have as a kid were "Freedom Fries,' back when we hated the French for some reason. It led me to wonder just how many things changed during a much larger fad, like the red scare.

I know the powers established by the constitution, but in many cases throughout history lesser defined roles such as this have been amplified by powerful individuals in them, and one would think with how close Adams had been to the foundations of the revolution, that he would have been taken on in a strong advisory role, or given some other administration, rather than left in the total limbo that is the now traditional role of Vice President? Were there internal politics that caused him to be marginalized, was there a hardline stance taken to follow the letter of the constitution with regards to his position? Was the depiction of his position in the HBO series accurate? Is there somewhere else I should look where this has already been answered?

Thank you very much in advance for answering my odd and rather rambling question.

I've been reading Adam Ardrey's popular history books Finding Arthur and Finding Merlin in which he makes a reasonable case for Arthur Mac Aedan. But to me, a lot of the evidence he puts forward seems a bit too convenient for it to be overlooked by historians for the past thousand years or so. Being inquisitive, I've searched the internet for some sort of scholarly response to his claims but have come up with a dearth of information. If anyone is familiar with his work, can you give me a convincing argument against Arthur Mac Aedan as the legendary Arthur?

This book passage is the closest I have come to an answer: "Women with jars on their heads, men carrying loads on their backs, and children bringing firewood with playful dogs at their heels had to make their way up and down these ladders. Considering how difficult this must have been, it is not surprising that some ceremonies intended to protect children from accidents were performed at the foot of ladders and that women gave feather offerings for safety and luck in ladder climbing."

I'm currently writing a research paper involving primary sources in regards to the above question. I have some of the usual historians (Malmesbury, Monmouth, Nennius, Virgil, etc). I'm looking to see if there are any other authors I should consider before I move forward with the final draft. I also need to utilize some decent secondary sources, and that seems to be trouble for me in finding.

Anyone have any suggested primary and secondary sources they have read/heard about and would find useful for just such a paper? I would really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Considering their closer proximity and much longer historical presence in the area, it seems even older civilizations could/would have made their way to Australia and occupied the land for themselves.

What I mean is, which preceding musical traditions came together to form it/influence it? I've heard, country, flamenco, African folk music, etc., all had a part. I'd just like to know more with certainty what they are and how they came to form this new type of music. Hopefully someone can help me.

The scene where the shyster politician tells the negroes they will get 40 acres and a mule for voting the way their friends do. Is this the genesis of the democratic lock on the black vote?

I'm 19yr old male living in Alberta Canada. I've always had a passion for history and human behavior and how it's changed over time. I'm wanting to go to school to study history but i was wondering a few things

• how would I make money? ( I'm not doing it for the money just wondering if I would be able to have a decent income )

• what would I be doing?

• what are good schools to go to?

Tips of any kind are helpful, thanks!

Some of the treatments like inoculation were obviously beyond their conception, but did they have the basic understanding of how disease spread to attempt quarantine or good sanitation? If other factors like civil war, Spanish invasion and religious confusion hadn't interfered would the death toll have been lower, or did the virulence of smallpox basically guarantee such a massive kill rate no matter what they tried?