After the Insurgent was captured by Captain Captain Thomas Truxtun commanding [USS Constellation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constellation_(1797). It seems that the ship was refitted and then the United States than purchased the ship for $84,500. It seems that the ship was claimed as a legitimate prize of the Quasi-war, brought to the West Indies to be refitted. It seems that it sailed from that refit as a gunned, crewed, named and flagged American warship January 30th during the war. So to my understanding of war prize rules of the age this ship should have become the property of the United States with out any fee to the State.
My question is whom would they have to pay? I noticed the ship was funded by an individual Pierre-Joseph Pénétreau, of Lorient France. In this age if a individual funded a ship instead of a state was the other country forced to repay the proper owner if captured? Would the original owner have any claim to recoup his losses from the capture of the ship? Thank you for your time.
1 Answers 2014-03-30
Hello everyone – another meta reminder, but I'll keep this one short, I promise.
We strongly encourage people to include sources in their answers that back up their claims and provide further reading. Although it's always been optional to cite your sources up front (and will remain so for the foreseeable future), it's great to see that the trend in the subreddit has been towards favouring well sourced answers.
However, I'd like to point out that in this subreddit when we say "source" we're using it in the academic sense of a text or other published material that supports what you're saying. If you're unclear on what that means, our resident librarian-mod /u/caffarelli has posted an short and sweet introduction to sources in history and academia.
We do not mean the reddit meme of providing a snippet of biographical information which (supposedly) establishes your authority to speak on the subject, e.g.:
Source: I'm a historian of Greek warfare.
or
Source: I've excavated at Thermopylae.
You may very well be a historian of Greek warfare who's excavated at Thermopylae, and that's a splendid reason to decide to answer a question about how many people fought there. By all means say so. But the purpose of citing a source is to provide a verifiable reason for us to believe that your answer is authoritative. Your credentials and experience aren't a source, and they don't achieve that, for the simple reason that this is an anonymous internet forum and we have no way of confirming that you're telling the truth. We're a trustworthy bunch – I think the vast majority of people here are who they say they are – but then there was one recent case where a troll did the rounds posting lengthy answers prefaced by claims to have a PhD in everything from Roman architecture to optometry. By providing sources that anyone can use to confirm what you say, we don't need to rely on trust alone.
In short, if you want to back up your claims in this subreddit (and you should!), please make sure that your "Source:" is an actual source that people can verify, and not just yourself.
34 Answers 2014-03-30
1 Answers 2014-03-30
It seems to me, especially after the battle for North Africa had been won, that an invasion into Vichy France may have been the better option than one into German-occupied northern France. Vichy French troops would be less likely to resist and the local population there could still be counted on to welcome Allied troops. Furthermore, an operation here would have forced Germany to occupy all of southern France, thereby spreading their troops more thinly.
The Allies were obviously intelligently organized and had successful strategies, so there must be a good reason for why this was never done - I'm just having a hard time considering what those reasons might be.
2 Answers 2014-03-30
2 Answers 2014-03-30
Today:
Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Day of Reflection. Nobody can read everything that appears here each day, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.
6 Answers 2014-03-30
There is a scene in the aforementioned movie in which this conversation takes place.
"She's a beauty, my lord, as would take a king to church for the dowry of a nutmeg."
"My plantations in Virginia are not mortgaged for a nutmeg. I have an ancient name which will bring you preferment when your grandson is a Wessex."
What, in this context, is a nutmeg? I know it is a spice which was popular during this time but I can find nothing anywhere to explain why the word is used to describe a woman.
1 Answers 2014-03-30
Greetings,
I am currently working on an essay wherein I try to analyse the question why the Ottoman empire began to "lag behind" in military power compared to the European powers (mainly the Habsburg Austrians of course) from the seventeenth century onwards, and I hope you can help answering my question, as I find it hard to compare the different factors on importance.
Please note that I am required to place the emphasis of the essay on matters military or connected with military culture. I am aware that the decline in might resulted from other interrelated processes as well as the military aspect, like decentralisation and weakening state power.
Currently I am using the military revolution debate (Parker, Roberts, Black etc.) as framework. This includes topics like the inefficient use of gunpowder, lack of modern fortifications and the general and increasing inability of the Ottomans to improve their army to modern standards. Connected to this are aspects such as the absence of modern scientific culture and good military academies.
I hope you can share your thoughts on the matter and maybe point me towards good sources I can use. Many thanks in advance!
1 Answers 2014-03-30
Also, Is it true that he ordered the fire to be started himself?
2 Answers 2014-03-30
In most movies, the Wild West (USA during the late 1800s to early 1900) is shown as a hectic place where everything goes. Is the potrayal accurate to real life?
2 Answers 2014-03-30
Seriously. The Zimmermann telegram seems like one of the most boneheaded decisions in the history of war. There was absolutely 0 chance it would have worked. Mexico knew it, the US knew it, and Germany should have known it too, so what was the point in sending such a damning letter?
Did they really think that with only having to deal with one front, they could stand against the millions of fresh troops and countless tons of new war machines we would bring to bear in a land war with them?
I know they were desperate to stop us sending supplies over, but how could making us a full on adversary in the conflict be a better option when they were 4 years into a fight that with their current enemies would end in a draw for them at best?
1 Answers 2014-03-30
Also how did they take there forms we have attributed to them (little green men, ect.)
1 Answers 2014-03-30
hey guys. long time lurker, first time poster. I have always been interested in the Cuban revolution but I have had trouble finding unbiased information on Che Guevara after 1959. Do any of you know some balanced sources I could read so that I can finally get some facts on what he did and did not do. There are just so many myths about him and it would be nice to read something that is a little more history a little less propaganda/sensationalism.
2 Answers 2014-03-30
I know they considered it dishonorable and cowardly. I assume the bushido code was a consequence, rather than a cause. Perhaps that's a false assumption. From a technological development point of view, it makes no sense at all. All pre-gunpowder military doctrine evolved around the shield. Greek hoplites, Roman Legions, Persian Immortals, Medieval Knights, all used shields. The Vikings, who had no contact (I presume) with the Europeans before the raids on England had shields. Mayans, Africans, Indians (from India), the Chinese... It seems the technology developed independently in several areas, as well as proliferated through geographic proximity. The Japanese seem to be the only warriors not to use it. Why not?
2 Answers 2014-03-30
Edit: Were there ANY English Kings of England? What about Harold, the King before the Battle of Hastings, or would he be more Anglo-Saxon?
4 Answers 2014-03-30
3 Answers 2014-03-30
It seems like China throughout the warlord era, the Japanese invasion, the Civil War, exile to Taiwan, etc, should have been a ruthlessly Darwinian environment that would have chewed up mediocrities.
Yet the story I keep hearing about Chiang Kai-Shek is that he was a corrupt and inept mediocrity. Ultimately, he lost control of most of China, but he effectively ruled China for a fairly long time, and even after the communists won the mainland, the KMT stuck by him.
What did Chiang bring to the table that other Chinese warlords like Cao Kun didn't? Was it just that his wife was really good at persuading Americans to give aid? Or was it just luck?
1 Answers 2014-03-30
2 Answers 2014-03-30
I guess it was but I'm not sure. Also how was it different? I have musical knowledge so you can bring musical terms.
1 Answers 2014-03-30
1 Answers 2014-03-30
Exactly what it says on the tin. I keep seeing articles like this one and any number of angry male bloggers/redditors who insist that this is totally 100% accurate and reflects some kind of anti-male bias throughout all of history and all societies, that reproduction has always favored women and that society has always been set up to let women reproduce while deliberately depriving many men of the ability to pass on their genes. How true is this assertion, and the (to me) extremely credibility-straining extrapolations which these people are getting from it?
2 Answers 2014-03-30
Inherited this from a family friend. It reads "J. Ward, to the queen and royal family, 5&6 Leichester Square." It is sitting in my garage now, and I am not sure of the value, or what in the world to do with it. Help!!!
2 Answers 2014-03-30
In 1894, China had a modern navy and army, capable of fighting the Japanese. Less than five decades later, China's army was a paper tiger and its navy was practically non-existent. What happened to China, why did it happen, and how did it happen?
2 Answers 2014-03-30