Was it because it would make The United States appear weak to her enemies i.e The British Empire? Or were there real legal reasons written in the constitution that prohibited the South from seceding?

Also, what did they name World War 1 when it was still happening? Did they classify it as a new category of war? Did they call it a world war before World War 2 came along?

I'm aware that the saying is different than its historical context - it's not as if the captain was supposed to commit suicide if his ship sank, he was just supposed to be the last man off the boat.

Still though, it seems to me like this would be a colossal waste of maritime experience and knowledge, especially during a war when you can't just train new admirals at your leisure. Shouldn't the captain be the first man off the ship?

Also, why is the idea of the captain actually going down with the ship romanticized so much? If you've ever seen "Perfect Storm" then you know what I mean. It seems like popular culture takes the saying quite seriously.

I was re-watching Pan's Labyrinth and was interested in what was in the doctor's medical kit. In the film they speak of antibiotics, something used to euthanize a soldier, and a liquid sedative.

What kinds of medicines were typical in a medical kit during that time period?

I was reading some about the French Dauphin and it seems crazy that the heir of the Kingdom would be granted a fiefdom that is technically part of an opposing country/empire (Holy Roman Empire). I have a few questions about how this would work.

1. Did they have voting rights to the Holy Roman Emperor?

2. If France and the HRE went to war, was he obligated to stay out of it, would the men in his domain be hesitant to help the French?

3. Wikipedia lists one of the instances of this causing issue as Charles VII marrying someone against his father's wishes, as it helped his position in Dauphine more than as a Frenchman. Are there any other issues that were raised because of this?

4. Many times the Dauphin was a child, who ruled in his stead? Was it a similar issue to when there was a regency for the Kingdom?

Thank you very much for your help/answers/anecdotes!

I am deeply saddened and disturbed that you actually believe the Korean War was a "fight for democracy". When the North "invaded" the South they were trying to kick out the foreign powers who'd captured Korea from the Japanese then divided it up amongst themselves to perform what can only be described as a sick social experiment to play communism off against capitalism. The original plan was to reunite Korea and see which side had the "superior" ideology. When this was abandoned the North took matters into their own hands.

I recently ran into someone in another subreddit who made this assertion, and would like to hear the conclusions of people who have thoroughly studied the matter.

The typical narrative in Western circles is that the UN (US) Forces were acting to preserve the independence of South Korea against unwarranted and unprovoked North Korean communist invasion in the aftermath of the free elections, and that the USSR and North Koreans were acting in bad faith prior to the invasion. Critics would argue this narrative ignores the re-establishment of former Japanese bureaucratic machines by the USAMGIK and RoK, the repression of Koreans by the South/ US (though in fairness it seems far more difficult to accurately gauge Occupation period repression in the north), and the decision to violate the Moscow Conference and hold free elections. (Which in both countries seemed to be rather dubious).

On the other side of the fence, it seems well accepted that Kim-Il Sung was hand picked by the Soviets to act as a proxy for their agenda in the region after the failure of homegrown communist movements to gain traction. Land reform and the events of the soviet occupation caused around half a million North Koreans to flee south, though some sources indicate this was relatively "bloodless", and evidence seems to suggest Kim wanted war as early as 1948 to reunify the peninsula, only held off by Stalin's desire to withdraw beforehand. (does that mean the Russians saw SK as illegitimate or was it a pure power grab?). NK seemed to have viewed the conflict as a means of forcing out foreign occupation and liberating the peninsula from the vestiges of imperialism (and the remnants of the Japanese occupation).

So how exactly should the war be classified? As an attempt to preserve the independence of South Korea against unwarranted aggression from North Korea? A conflict to liberate the South from new foreign occupation, residual Japanese collaborator influence, and end foreign imperialism? Or a ideological war between the West and the USSR?

I have heard from a few Egyptian people that they see themselves as culturally, and perhaps racially different from Arabic people. The distinction seems to involve the Arabs being in some way nomadic, as opposed to the Egyptians who are more settled and are higher in social and intellectual status (I sincerely hope this question doesn't offend anyone, I am suspicious of these claims hence my reason for this post).

If there is no racial distinction, as I suspect, is there then a clear cultural distinction?

1. What was the most heavily armed and armored tank?

2. Was the Tiger 2 the strongest German tank?

3. Did the Allies have any heavy tanks?

What do we know about them? Really, how did the society in Feudal Japan see them? Were they distnguished in any way in battle from their male counterparts in regards to armour and clothing?

We touched on this in class today very briefly, and my professor mentioned that there was a very long (300 years) debate about whether Jesus should be worshiped, or if he should be treated in a similar fashion as Muhammad, who is considered strictly a prophet.

Anyone know of a single book that offers an overview of Roman history, politics and culture? I somehow entered adult life without a class in Roman history, and I already have a huge reading list before grad school this fall.

Early European man is often called a 'caveman' in popular culture, and I was wondering how many of them actually lived in caves. Sure, there are cave paintings and I imagine caves provided advantages over other dwelling for early man, but how prevalent can cave systems actually be, and was it more of a rare advantage rather than a necessity?

I'm also curious if this cave culture is found in other areas outside of Europe.

I'm very interested in Old Norse mythology and stories, as well as the general history of the people from roughly 750 AD to 1300. My Great Great Grandfather was the last sailor in my family, and he was on my Swedish side. His father was a shipbuilder from Finland, and so they probably both sailed. I'm curious what a Scandinavian sailor who roamed the seas c 1870 would believe.

As the Norsemen were avid sailors and whalers, did they think there were massive monsters in the sea? I'm aware of the Kraken's mythological existence between Greenland and Norway, but is there anything else? And what did the Norse think of the whales?

Whenever ancient Egyptians are depicted on television, they always seem to be shirtless and wearing that skirt thingy. How true is that?

I would like to get some background knowledge about the crimean peninsula in order to understand the current events better.