Hello all, I am writing a paper about the effects, both good and bad, of geography on important battles in the U.S. Civil War for my Historical Geography class. I have about fifteen good sources but am always looking to find more sources to utilize concerning the topic. Does anyone know of any good primary or secondary sources concerning geography during this period?

I'm hoping someone can help. I'm researching family history, and I've found out that my great grandfather died in the 1st World War, but I can't seem to find specific information as to what battle he was in when he died, or any details about regimental activities that day.

My great grandfather was in the 177th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, and died along with over 50 others on the 11th October 1917. I've tried emailing the Royal Artillery information email address but it keeps coming back as undelivered.

If anyone has any details about what the battle was and the location, I'd really appreciate it. Extra info about specific incidents on that day would be even better!

Please provide links if you have, or can find them.

I’m working on a World War Two Food History journal and have been stumped by what herbs and spices were greatly affected by Germany’s u-boats. I can only think of cinnamon so far (to the US), and I don’t even know the specific type or where it’s located either. I would greatly appreciate the assistance in this matter.

If possible can the location of the herb/spice be mentioned, as well as to which country it would have been shipped to?

Hi, I am working on a high school research paper and I have two topics I like but I am struggling to find sources that talk about my specific topics and their counterarguments. Here are my two topics:

1. Prussia was a victim in World War II and we shouldn't have considered them the bad guy because they were just used as a scapegoat for the Third Reich.
2. Austria-Hungary was in the right for declaring war on Serbia and the start of World War I was the Russian Empire and the German Empires fault for getting involved in Austria and Serbia's war.

Are there any specific places I could find information on these topics or any key words that would be helpful? Thank you!

Per Wikipedia rates of “No particular religious affiliation” in Canada are roughly 35%. And US rates are 23%.

Average Canadian rates of religiously unaffiliated people are similar to San Francisco’s rates (famously one of the least religious big US cities)

Both rates started really increasing in the 1960s and were fairly similar before that, what caused such a striking divergence in national trends?

On a related note I was going over regional data and noticed that in both countries rates of religious affiliation are lowest on the west coast. Why?

I am currently reading "Weavers, Scribes, and Kings" by Amanda Podany. I just started the section of on Ur III. Of Ur I and II, Podany writes, "You will look in vain, however, for references to an Ur I or Ur II period. The first and second dynasties of Ur didn't give their names to whole eras because they didn't have a big impact on history." (pg. 170)

So, how do we know the third dynasty of Ur is indeed third one? If we know there was an Ur I and Ur II, why don't we use those terms? Is it because there were huge gaps in rulers? (e.g. Ur I, bunch of random dudes, Ur 2 part one etc.)

Thanks in advance!

My understanding is that an “accomplished” young lady during this time period was one who could play a musical instrument, speak French, and embroider/do needlework well. I may be mistaken, so please let me know if this is not the case. If these were in fact the main elements of an aristocratic lady’s education, why were they considered so important for her to know?

Learning a musical instrument makes some sense to me, as a lady could entertain her family and their guests and show off their ability to afford a pianoforte or other expensive instrument. French and embroidery don’t seem to have such a clear value to me, though. A typical English lady would never travel to France or have the need to communicate with French speakers, no? And she wouldn’t have been encouraged to be knowledgeable about literature, right? As for embroidery, why did people seem to care so much? If it was an important part of making clothes/linens, why didn’t wealthy families pay professionals to do it? If it wasn’t practical, then why did people care so much?

Please help me understand why people thought French and embroidery were so important for young ladies to learn. Thanks so much!

There has to be some reason, i'm tired of people saying there was no reason.

It seems like lots and lots of Greeks moved to Persia, the Levant and Egypt at this time and I’ve also noticed that Macedonia and the rest of Greece seems to have been the weakest element in the Hellenistic world, basically reverting to it’s extent under King Phillip II and keeping none of Alexander’s conquests and being the first to fall under Roman domination, I wonder if this is because mass emigration from Macedonia and the rest of Greece to Asia or Egypt caused depopulation, and thus they had fewer men to recruit as soldiers, fewer farmers to feed an army, less tax revenue with which to fund a war or hire mercenaries etc?

I know that people were able to claim property if they settled on it, but it seems like such an ordeal, with such a small margin of success, that I'm surprised people actually did it. Did they get paid for it? Is there some other incentive I don't know about?

Hi, I am interested in history from a non-professional standpoint and I was wondering if there were any good websites where I can get access to archives of historical documents or translations of historical documents. I am specifically wondering about very ancient texts from places like ancient Greece, Rome, the middle east, and any other societies where writing was commonplace to ensure a wide variety of material for me to read through. I am particularly interested in descriptions of daily life in these societies and in ancient food recipes. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

Obviously any armor capable of stopping a musket ball would be so damn heavy that a footman could not wear it. It seems as though cuirassier armor could deflect a ball at range, but it was cumbersome and up close it did little. What I'm primarily curious about is why your average musket carrying footman wore no armor. With flintlocks failing to fire one in six times, even in good conditions. It makes the bayonet indispensable, since melee combat was still occurring why did footmen not wear even light armor or carry a small metal buckler that could be secured on the belt? Why not wear something that could turn a bayonet aside?

Explanations are more than welcome, but sources and dedicated books on the subject of technology advancements (especially pertaining to military advancements) under the age of sail (1571 - 1862) roughly) would be especially appreciated.

Finding information on this has been irritating, for what ever reason I keep coming up with unhelpful assessments of medieval armors ability to stop musket fire.

All answers are appreciated

I'm very curious to understand how we got texts from classical antiquity. The story from the middle ages generally seems to be that they were rediscovered in a religious institution, copied and circulated around Europe from the 14th century, helping the renaissance to flourish. But what were these texts doing for the preceding millennium? And how did they get onto those dusty shelves to begin with?

Take as an example Caesar's Commentaries, copies of this would have been scribed in Rome in ~50BCE, (on what material?), it would have kicked around rich senators private libraries for a few hundred years, what is the link from the fall of the WRE to its rediscovery? Of course every text will have its own story, but what are common stories?

(Not talking about fragmentary texts on clay or archaeological work here, but the longer texts that have survived from Greek and Roman antiquity).

Prior to the 1960s, women weren’t allowed to have their own bank accounts. How would an heiress or newly famous Hollywood starlet ensure they kept control of, and safeguarded, their funds? Would they have even used banks after the bank runs during the Depression?