657 reputation
315
bio website
location Romania
age 29
visits member for 1 year, 11 months
seen 6 hours ago


Dec
14
comment Was the anti-slavery characteristic of the US Civil War unique in global history?
No, there was absolutely nothing which is defined as slavery. Slavery means that slaves are private property, just like furniture. There was no such thing in the 3rd Reich. No one citizen could legally own another human being. There is no place here for fringe theories or for redefinition of terms.
Dec
14
comment Was the anti-slavery characteristic of the US Civil War unique in global history?
The West Africa Squadron is a nice example. I completely disagree about WW2, as slavery means the ownership of a human by another human. Ending an occupation was part of many wars.
Dec
14
awarded  Curious
Dec
13
awarded  Popular Question
Dec
13
revised Was the anti-slavery characteristic of the US Civil War unique in global history?
edited title
Dec
13
asked Was the anti-slavery characteristic of the US Civil War unique in global history?
Dec
4
awarded  Notable Question
Dec
4
awarded  Popular Question
Dec
4
awarded  Nice Question
Dec
3
comment When was the last time a reigning monarch personally participated in battle?
@Anixx : were there such occasions, where the monarch just visited? I guess Napoleon would count as a valid answer if there was nobody more recent, as he took an active role on the battlefield. I don't want it to become a heap paradox, this is why I didn't try to formulate even more elaborate rules. If a reasonable person might think that he "participated", without bending linguistics too much, than I'll gladly accept it.
Dec
3
comment When was the last time a reigning monarch personally participated in battle?
If you think the second sentence can cause confusion, I can gladly remove it.
Dec
3
comment When was the last time a reigning monarch personally participated in battle?
@Semaphore : ... and presidents, dictators, and general secretaries can also be recognized as rulers of a state. I wanted to narrow it down on actual monarchs.
Dec
3
asked When was the last time a reigning monarch personally participated in battle?
Dec
3
comment New theory on origins of modern-day Romania?
3 points against the "Romanians are the same as the Romans" and "Romanians are the same as the Dacians" theory: 1. Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic religion. 2. No mention of them between the 3rd and 10th-11th centuries. 3. A lot of Slavic words in the language. Nation states as we understand them now were not existing back then, it's impossible to say that certain people are the ancestors of certain current nation, especially if there is a huge time gap of many centuries, in the middle of the Migration Period when a lot of different people were mixing around all the time.
Nov
12
comment Why were rockets not popular as part of artillery until 20th century?
Modern ballistic missiles are guided. Rockets in the 18th century were not.
Oct
25
comment Why were Austria-Hungary's Slavic minorities put into multinational states?
The fact which supports this answer is the case of Transylvania. If the main purpose was to make just and fair borders, the borders would have looked similar to what happened in the Vienna Awards. The fact that large territories with absolute Hungarian majority were given to surrounding countries points that the borders were not created for the benefit of the nationalities, but for reasons of Realpolitik.
Oct
25
comment Why was the movement for Austro-German unity less successful than that of Italian unity?
If Austria and Germany would now conduct a poll, and the result was "yes for unification", I doubt that the countries which made up the Allies in WW2 would invade them. So such a poll would not fail because of this. It would fail because the current political climate in Germany is centered around not saying absolutely anything which could be turned by someone into an accusation of neo-nazism.
Sep
27
comment Why did archery not make a comeback when armor was phased out in the 18th century?
This is an exception, not an explanation. Had most Allied soldiers been carrying bows and broadswords instead of guns, the Germans would have won WW II.
Sep
27
answered Why did archery not make a comeback when armor was phased out in the 18th century?
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer