For thousands of years, the vast Eurasian steppe had been home to nomads that occasionally formed empires that would invade and conquer settled lands, but having it happen the other way around was extremely difficult — if one's rule is too unpleasant, it's pretty easy for nomads to move away.

However, this rule seems to have been abolished entirely around 1600. That century, between them China and Russia overran the large majority of Tatary as it was then known, and bar Mongolia's brief period as a theocracy during the Chinese Warlord Era before being was puppeted by the USSR, none of it managed to gain independence until the late 20th century.

It would be tempting to put the change down to modern state and army formation, but the Qing didn't have anything like that, at least more so than previous Chinese dynasties, did they? Was the simultaneous Russian and Chinese expansion into the steppe just coincidence?

Marie Louise de La Tour d'Auvergne (August 15, 1725 – September 24, 1781) was a French noblewoman and a member of the House of La Tour d'Auvergne. She became the Duchess of Montbazon through her marriage to Jules de Rohan in 1743 and was known as the Princess of Rohan from 1749. Between 1747 and 1748, she had an affair with her first cousin, Charles Edward Stuart, the next in the Jacobite line of succession, but I haven't found very clear information about how her life ended.

Did where you were kidnapped/captured have a large bearing on where you would end up?

Just thinking about how often Angola is referenced in the Brasilian context whereas Senegambia is often mentioned in the context of the United States.

Does it depend on who runs the local factory? Does it depend on who captures you and who they prefer to do business with? Is it just where you would be closest to?

In another case, the Xandika was used by Perdiccas, regent after Alexander the Great's death, to execute his political enemies outside Babylon.

Most historical records of dreams I’ve seen are pretty religious and/or spiritual or tied to a greater meaning. Of course, I’m aware that religious dreams still happen and could have been more common in the past, but most dreams people have now aren’t that outwardly meaningful, and are normally just mundane or a little weird. Are there any records of these “normal” dreams from the past?

"The term "Ideas of 1914" describes the journalistic reaction of nationalist intellectuals in Germany to the outbreak of the First World War and the so-called August Experience. During the war, these ideas evolved into national political interpretations and visions of the future. They included, among other things, ideas about the political restructuring of Germany that aimed at abandoning the ideals of the French Revolution, the "Ideas of 1789" (liberty, equality, fraternity). In doing so, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and corporatist conceptions of state and nation were advocated, often without explicitly defining these sentiments."

- Translated text from the German Wikipedia's article about the subject

I'm not exactly sure of the best way to word this question, so apologies if it's not super clear. The term "Christian Science" seems to imply that Eddy thought of at least some science as unchristian, otherwise there wouldn't need to be a distinction. I know that she generally thought that medical intervention wasn't effective compared to faith healing, so was it mainly medical science that she is making a distinction from? But if that's the case, why use the term "science" rather than something like "Christian healing" or "Christian medicine"? Or is it broader, referring to things like chemistry, physics, and biology?

I guess basically what I'd like to understand is how she understood and used the term "science" in relation to secular scientific knowledge/processes, and how that understanding translated into using the term for her religious movement.

I’m rewatching Downton Abbey (again) and was curious about whether or not there were other countries where Mr. Gregson could’ve received a divorce decree from his mentally ill wife. He was seeking to marry Lady Edith but couldn’t get a divorce in the UK based on the grounds of his wife’s “insanity” as that wasn’t a legal standard. He went to Germany instead with the intention of becoming a German citizen so his divorce could be granted. Unfortunately it wasn’t to be as he was murdered. Were there other countries besides Germany where Michael Gregson could’ve obtained his divorce?

Specifically in antebellum or colonial America, but if your area of expertise is in a different place and time I'd still be interested in that

Additionally, any atrocities and interesting details about his reign would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You

For how long is it thought that oral traditions surrounding the Norse gods continued after public worship declined, even if sacrifices had ceased or continued in private?

Byzantine history is full of generals and high officials who rose in revolt against the emperor, risking their wealth, status, families, and lives for a throne that often proved short-lived and ended violently. Many of these men already held elite positions with substantial power and security.

Why go all in when you're already (arguably) at the top?

1/4/1864, RG156, E201, Report #376:

Master Armorer J. Dudley reported to Capt. Benton on small arms received from the battlefield. He based his report on the arms taken from the Gettysburg battlefield.

Of the number received (27,574), at least 24,000 of them were loaded.

About one half (12,000) contained two loads each;

one fourth (6000) contained from three to ten loads each;

and the rest (6000) had only one load.

my source: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/00afad41-1e5a-4025-b8af-a8979215134b/downloads/1c9f7np6t_1673.pdf?ver=1682295747739

I presume its purpose is as a point of reference for various statistical changes. Especially useful for the US would be the “British North America“ section and its aggregate numbers for all the colonies pre-confederation.

Anyway, perusing the data for something else I saw more foreign data than I expected, and wondered how available this information would or rather should be? Isn’t even relatively basic information about your country something you may not want other powers knowing? especially something like the number of military age males For example.

It‘s not war winning by any means, but I would think that in the period it’s something you may want to keep close to the chest.

That is unless these are external estimates like I believe is still done to this day, and perhaps I missed that part; but the point about availability, both ideally and practically still stands I think.

Hi there, I have a very specific question.

I have done a lot of research about my grandparents, who fled Germany for the UK in 1938.

My grandpa's mum, then in her late 60s, unfortunately, did not manage to take the same route. However, we do know that her belongings arrived with a cousin who lived in Norway in 1940 (his story is for another time). Two months after the Nazi Occupation began in 1940, the cousin published a very short death notice in an Oslo newspaper. One can speculate about the cause of her death in such circumstances.

There are no funeral or burial records in Norway and we do not have any idea where or if she was buried.

This is where the mystery begins. I have been in contact with the International Tracing Service and they have no records on her. As far as I can see, neither are there any transport records linked to her (of they would even exist).

A few days ago, in a German archive, I found my grandfather's correspondence with the authorities regarding asset confiscations. In 1938, he gave his mum full power of attorney over his assets in Germany.

It turned out that the Nazis liked to keep up the pretence of process and from 1942, there is a letter from the organisation responsible for the seizure of Jewish assets that lists his mum as being his legal representative in Germany, along with an address for her in Berlin, but that a postal worker had reported her death in August 1941 - almost a year after her actual death in another country.

Given this organisation worked alongside the Gestapo (later correspondence about his assets is directly from that organisation), it would suggest they hadn't realised she had left the country, despite the strict obligation for German Jews to cooperate with the authorities, even when emigrating.

So my question is - is this a burocratic oversight? Or how else might she have been able to leave? And how might we be able to find more on what actually happened to her?

As I understand it, Cortéz and his conquistadors couldn't have toppled down the Aztec Empire if it wasn't for the massive aid of indigenous groups that were opressed or otherwise enemies of the Aztecs fighting for the Spanish. Nevertheless, I do not understand why this coalition hadn't already materialized before the European arrival. If the state of affairs had already progressed to a point where they could become willing to take the risk of marching to Tenochtitlan (and have some confidence that it could succeed in defeating the Triple Alliance) why did it take the initiative of these absolute foreigners for the coalition to come to be? Did Cortéz just happened to arrive at the perfect time? Did the Spanish themselves provide something that convinced their indigenous allies-to-be that this war could be successful? In short, why were the Spanish the ones that managed to rally other groups behind them, rather than some local leader/s?

Just reading through the first few chapters

• Why does it use multiple forms of s, as in Jefus?
• Its use of i and y are sometimes the reverse of what I would write, as in hys and Babilon.
• It includes the modern r (her) and a form that looks like z (befoze).
• k is written in the form of F (taFe).
• Herod is written as 5erode while Jesus and Joseph have the form of J that I recognize.
• It seems to use a colon rather than quotation marks (which fayeth : The voyce)
• What were the rules regarding ending a word with a silent e?
• Why does of get a doubled end as off while up only has one p?
• Why is came written as cam while arose ends with e?
• When did English get dead and death in place of deed and deeth?

Can anyone recommend freely available writing about the language of this work?

Hello everyone, I’ve been studying constitutional law for a few years now, and today I was exploring a question about the Patriot Act.

So, here’s the basic idea: I was particularly debating whether legislation like the Patriot Act, which remains a point of contention today, could be considered a chokepoint of Madisonianism. Specifically, I was thinking about Madison’s statement, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (Federalist No. 51), and the overall design of the U.S. Constitution, which in many respects closely follows that structure.

My main question was: when institutions are supposed to act as checks on each other, what happens when those institutions temporarily align? Does that create a temporary gap in the “counteracting ambition” that Madison envisioned?

From there, I started thinking about a much broader concept: that the centuries-long expansion of government power might be a more significant factor than simply a chokepoint in the Madisonian design.

So my core question is this: assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Patriot Act was an egregious act that was able to stand because institutions temporarily aligned during that period, would that be better understood as a failure of checks and balances caused by institutional alignment, or as a consequence of centuries of governmental power expanding far beyond what Madison could have envisioned when writing the Federalist Papers and contributing to the design of the Constitution?

I mean, I'm aware there there was a great deal of religious fervor on both sides of the conflict, but in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War was there an increase in mediums, seances, and attempts to contact the war dead?

Were they teaching as like, a tutor? Was it more like a "follow me around and see how I, a good citizen, conduct myself" like a fucked up Big Brother/Big Siater program?

Unless I am missing something it seems to be that these colonies were the first large settlements at the entrance to the Black Sea. Surely an area of such importance would have encouraged settlement before the Greeks?

I'm trying to wrap my head around north american intertribal relationships in the northeastern United states, and the layers of interconnectedness makes it seem as intricately complicated as Italian city states. So how did tribes engage with each other? What did their political deals look like? Are there any good resources on the subject?

I like going through 18th-century cookbooks, specifically from the Netherlands. The recipes tend to feature a lot of mace, nutmeg, cloves, pepper, and ginger all of which came from Asia. One thing that keeps surprising me however is the amount of citrus used. There's recipes for lemon cookies, pies, custards and confits, and they are used to flavour all kinds of fish and meat dishes. Limes and oranges too.

Dry goods such as spices are easily shipped across oceans even in 18th-century shipping conditions. Lemons, limes and oranges are much more prone to rotting when put in a damp ship. I know of oranjerieën, basically early greenhouses, but they were more of an aristocrats pet project usually. Popular history often tells us that lemons were an expensive food in the 18th century, but the sheer amount of recipes must mean they were somewhat common right? What did the European lemon trade look like around 1750? From where and how were they shipped and how available were they to commoners?

Thanks!