I'm reading Robert Middlekauff's superb book on the American Revolution, and came across a sentence where he cites Washington's distrust of civilian-in-arms as perhaps the reason he was blinded to the possibility of drawing the entire population into the conflict in a similar way to the French Revolution (p.343).

Middlekauff doesn't say any more on the topic and I was hoping someone could elucidate.

When I bring up political party accomplishments to friends and family, many cite this era (circa 1910s) as a time where previous accomplishments of the Republican Party platform can be attributed to the modern day Democratic Party. I need to discover what happened during this period of time to determine how I view history and the people involved in American historical events.

No, I'm not looking for ammunition to win political arguments. I'm interested to know the truth about the two major American political parties and how we view the progress that America has gained in the past 200 years.

I'm aware that it was illegal as it went against the ideas of their "Socialist Morality", but how widespread and available was it? How was it acquired? Was it similar to mid-20th Century America in its underground nature?

Roman Spain, France and Italy all were conquered by Germanic tribes (Visigoths, Franks and Lombards respectively) who created kingdoms there in late antiquity. These kingdoms all ended up speaking the language of the general population and abandoning the Germanic languages of the ruling class.

A similar invasion occurred in post-roman Britain but in this case the kingdoms kept their Germanic languages and it was the native Romano-Celtic languages that were abandoned.

Is there any explanation for this difference?

The older I get, the more respect I have for this guy. I want to emulate him in my own life and want to learn more about how he led people so powerfully with so much integrity.

I'm doing the Spanish Civil War for my Spanish class and I'm doing some research at the moment but I need some help. What caused the Spanish Civil War? I don't mind if you prefer to explain in brief.

Thanks

I was thinking today of Germany and how as a nation-state it's probably one of the youngest of the major European powers. And that led on to - why is that?

I mean, I understand that immediately after the fall of Rome, most of Europe was scattered and divided. But then over time, they slowly began to consolidate and turn into something resembling proper kingdoms.

This never happened for the HRE - what are the specific reasons why the HRE existed for most of its history as a collection of loosely-aligned city-states, whereas countries like France started out divided, but ended up unifying?

I only recently learned about this war, and I was shocked to see that some estimates put the death toll at 20 million, or even higher, making it by far the deadliest war of the 19th century. What factors lead to it being such a destructive conflict?

I have started to reread the Sherlock Holmes stories and had an argument with a friend concerning the new portrails of Sherlock on TV, primarily in respect to his drug usage. So, I am curious as to hoe Victorian society saw drug usage and abuse, did they view it as an out right evil or was it accepted/tolerated?

Furthermore, how would a sound sleeper not accidentally oversleep an important meeting?

E.g. Jim Crow...

Edit: I'm not looking for anything really specific. Just a few examples of cases where federal courts overturned state laws they found to be discriminatory, just for my own information. Thanks!

Belgium is split into Dutch (Flemish) speaking Flanders and French speaking Wallonia. The King was the cousin of Victoria and was- I assume- able to speak quite a few languages. So what language would he have spoken/thought in? Thanks

Was watching Das Boot last night and I realized I've never understood how depth charges are used. I know they use planes and such but how can they locate the position of a sub if it's gone silent?

The demise of the Western Roman Empire is usually attributed to the inability of her armies to sufficiently repel the barbarian tribes from migrating due to a manpower shortage. However I have come across information that the empire, both the East and West, showed no population decline.

I got this information from, I believe, Professor Liebeschuetz (“The End of the Roman Army in the Western Empire” in Rich J., Shipley G., War and Society in the Roman World) and I'm asking AskHistorians if this is true?

Do they turn me In or do they leave me be? What sort of jurisdiction did the allies have in treatment of each others' deserters?