Is there also a most-widely accepted reason for the flaw in the gear-design? A mind as incredible as his would surely not make such a simple mistake.

I have read that the Emancipation Proclamation was declared in part to prevent British and/or French intervention in the Civil War. However Lincoln and much of his cabinet were supposedly abolitionist so was there a plan to put an end to slavery before the war forced their hand?

I've been reading various articles and a book by Lipset for the complete lack or a weak presence of a social democratic or socialist party in the United States. Hartz contends that the lack of a feudal tradition is one reason for the lack of a strong left-wing party in the United States; men were relatively 'equal' and as a result "no rigid and explicit class structure developed". However, in the American South, there is an explicit history of Black slavery, "a slave system that became a caste system, a very hierarchical social structure, and a very strong and repressive government apparatus" of which its implications continue to this day.

Assuming it didn't take deep root. why didn't socialism take root amongst African-American's in the South? Moreover, is there any difference amongst Europeans under a feudal system and African-Americans under slavery visavis the momentum of a socialist movement? Did African-Americans just lack the resources? Any ideas?

I know there's a myriad of reasons for the weakness of socialism in the US. However, I am looking for answers that are specific to European feudalism vs African-American slavery in the South. In Europe, were there relatively more workers who felt disenfranchised and had strength in numbers to mobilize? whereas in the American South, African-American slaves were relatively weaker? What accounts for the discrepancy for European peasants/workers to 'successfully' mobilize against capitalists and the failure of Black slaves in the US to fight for their emancipation early on under a banner of egalitarianism or socialism?

Observation: In Europe, the struggle against feudalism and the ravages of industrialization took on a class conscious character in a relatively homogeneous population, and this class based identity continued to develop. Some would argue that the Southern US did exhibit a feudal structure visavis the slavery of African-Americans. However I would contend that in the Southern United States, mobilization against slavery (which had qualities similar feudalism) took on a exclusively racial character, as the emancipation of Black folk, as opposed to being defined as a class struggle?

I love history, I really do but I just can't sit down and dip my head into a factually heavy history book after studying all day (Currently doing politics, philosophy and economics degree). I didn't want to take a history degree as I feel history is much more of a hobby to me than anything else.

I'm interested in most European history and prehistory. I just need to find some books that will keep me gripped and that I can dip in and out of quite easily.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Slavic identity seems to much stronger than something like Germanic identity or Romance identity or another similarly large group of related languages.

Considering they live everywhere, and closer to the poles than any other insect.

On QI the other day they showed a photo of the Duke of Wellington, born 1769. I was wondering if there is a known photo of anyone born before this date.

I couldn't see this in the FAQ, apologies if I missed it.

Western tribes are always depicted in the visual arts with dozens or hundreds of decorated horses. How did these tribes become equestrian? Or is the prevalence of horses among those tribes in the post-colonial era exaggerated?

To narrow it down a bit, when did patriarchal society become the norm? Has it always been this way? I know there are some societies where matriarchy has been more dominant, but overall, why in most cases do men rule?

And lastly, have there ever been any societies where the male/female dynamic was truly equal?

I never understood this. Everyone I have talked to says how Guns, Germs, and Steel is a bad book partly because Diamond isn't a historian. Shelby Foote isn't a historian either. He was a novelist before he wrote his book on the Civil War.

Perhaps this is a better question for /r/askscience or an aviation subreddit, but I wanted to try here first.

I'm curious if someone can explain how the English common law system originated and then developed into the coherent body of law present at the time of U.S. independence? How did these early common law courts function? How much influence did the English monarch have over these courts? Were there other precedent-based legal systems that served as a basis for English common law or was it an original development?

From what little I've read, it seems it's not nearly as well known as Canaanite or Egyptian mythology, why is this?

Do we know the names of many of their gods, or their worship rituals and legends?