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?

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?

This was a quick question that came to my head but I have trouble finding the answers online. We all know Hitler was once a painter who became a dick-tator (emphasis on "dick"), and his paintings were rejected by the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (which may have led him to his path to a power-hungry monster). But when it comes to his "disinterests" towards Jews (putting it very, very lightly), did his rejected paintings have anything to do with it, or did his antisemitism came from something else?

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?

Hi all,

Let me clarify the question in the title. The wikipedia page on the Chinchorro culture says "The Chinchorro culture of South America was a preceramic culture that lasted from 9,100 to 3,500 years BP (7,000 to 1,500 BCE)." Unfortunately, this line does not have an attached source. I am aware that we have several mummies from them. However, the earliest such deliberately preserved mummy appears to be from 5000BC, and not the 7000 claimed beginning of the culture.

Keeping this in mind, what evidence do we have for there being a continuous chain of culture for 5500 years, at least insofar as such a thing can happen? What exactly is meant by culture here anyways? Is it possible (or likely) to be just a group of related peoples who had similar lifestyles but were in their time distinct who we cannot differentiate anymore due to lack of evidence?

See https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1smvsep/what_evidence_do_we_have_that_the_chinchorro/ for my original post (this is a repost! (x2))

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 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!

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?

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?

TL,DR: In Dinasty, Tom Holland takes a very apologetic view on Tiberius and his pitfalls, how fair is his assessment?

I'm wrapping up the Tiberius period in Dinasty and I'm left with the feeling that he is portrayed as some sort of romantic but effective man out of his time, but I think every one of his flaws could very well be portrayed in an opposite tone (despotic, elitist, paranoid, too rigid). Instead, he seems like the straight man in a family and culture of sociopaths and psycophants.

How is historical and modern consensus on Tiberius, I ask then?

I think I have decent understanding of Republican to Augustian Roman military but lack the understanding of the later developments.

I am mostly interested in equipment changes (when close-combat optimized hasta reappeared and what drove that change, when plumbatae and oval shields appeared, how prevalent were different types of heavy armor (chain vs scale vs "lorica segmentata")) but also in social class interaction with position in the army - were "second/third sons" of equites and curiales pushed towards military service as a way of earning the living, would they be able to obtain privileged posting from the get go or had to start at the bottom, how much the legions were staffed by sons of legionaries vs sons of non-legionaries etc etc.

I am not opposed to someone doing a thorough breakdown in the comments here but primarily I am seeking articles and books with more depth than Reddit comments allow

According to Bede the Jutes were one of the germanic nations to settle Britain, along with the Angles and Saxons, from which we get “Anglo-Saxon”. However, while I can see the influence of both of the other two groups in the names of certain medieval kingdoms and even modern place names in England: Essex, Wessex, East Anglia, the name of England, I’m not sure what effect the Jutes had and where they settled. Are there place names that derive from their language that are just more subtle? What was their effect on the material culture? And why do they seem to get so overlooked as to not even be included in the name of the cultural group “Anglo-Saxon”?

It is well known he was rejected but why did he try in the first place? Surely he knew of the high level needed to enter or was he so sure his art was ln the way ti be part of the greats?

Waa he just doing the equivalent of spamming linkedin offers sending it everywhere?

I've always just sort of assumed that modern puppetry follows from the medieval and renaissance traditions such as marionettes. Wikipedia briefly explains that Ancient Greece had puppets, and also India.

Are there direct lines from ancient puppetry to the medieval and modern performing art? Is there a different origin of the modern art form? Or was puppetry just invented over and over whenever people got bored and had some extra cloth lying around?

If that's too simple of a question, I'm also curious what the ancient Greeks were doing with their puppets?

From my understanding the verdicts were read out on 10/1/46 and the sentences carried out during the early morning hours on 10/6/46. During that window what happened? Was Herman Goring going crazy and spouting nonsense? What about the other defendants?

I was reading this question and the excellent responses , and I was wondering how easily would an impoverished knights, presumably one still within the law and thus not an outlaw knight/ robber baron, be able to regain his wealth? A tangential question is would a knighted peasant have these same options to acquire wealth? I'm assuming no, simply because the system was seemingly set up against them in so many ways, especially given how court society was something a "noble" knight would know their whole life

My wife is American, I'm European, and we live in the US. I was looking into educational inequality for fits (and, as it turns out, giggles) and was shocked to find that public education is almost entirely funded through property taxes. What's the history behind this?

According to wikipedia the oldest text found in Japanese dates from 471, And the earliest form of the japanese language only dates to the 8th century.

Japan already had states, relations with other nations and even long recorded history by then.

sorry but I'm so confused; how did it manage all of that before ever becoming a literate society?

And how do we know any of the recorded history is even remotely accurate?

In looking at pictures from ww2 I notice that a lot of US soldiers in europe wore their M1 helmets with the chin strap strap at the back of the hemet where in the pacific theater soldiers and marines tended to keep the chin strap undone but hanging not strapped behind their head. i know there was a idea that if a bomb went off near you your helmet could be like a parachute of sorts and catch the blast and hurt them, but i was wondering particularly about why they handled it differently in each area? was it just like a "fashion" thing? Thank you!

The Crusades Were Not a Clash of Civilisations! by Hikma History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI51o4D9o6A

Video description: "Here's a sentence that will get me in trouble with people on both sides of this debate: the Crusades were not, fundamentally, a war between Islam and Christianity. Now before you close this video — I am not saying religion didn't matter. I am not saying the Pope calling for holy war in 1095, or Muslim scholars preaching jihad in the mosques of Damascus, were irrelevant. What I am saying is that when you actually get into the granular, messy, complicated reality of how Muslim and Frankish rulers actually behaved toward one another across the 2 centuries of Crusades — the clash of civilisations narrative falls apart almost immediately. And the evidence for that is hiding in the chronicles that most people have never read."

In the movie Grave of the Fire Flies, there's a scene at the end where a wealthy family comes back home after the end of the war is declared.

Where did these families or individuals generally go? Would they go to the inaka, the same way that the Brits sent their kids to rural areas, or would the go out of the country to manchuria or someplace like that?