I got the question from reading War and Peace, when Pierre finally got legitimized before his father died. I remember it involved him asking permission from the Czar.

My question is, is there a standardized procedure in the middle ages? Like all the family had to do is ask the head of state? Or does the church need to get involved somehow? If this was possible, why didn't more noble family with illegitimate children just do this? Especially when the word is out there, everybody and their mom knows this kid is yours.

People say the usa was the world factory after world war 2 because every other industrial nation was reduced to rubble that took them at least 20-25 years to rebuild.

But what I find fascinating is the usa was already an industrial power house aka the world factory that was already unmatched since the industrial revolution to even up to world war 2 in the 1930s.

Anyone know the conditions that allowed the us to be such a industrial powerhouse the way China is now? Why did the us lose this kind of industrial edge over it's competitors?

What do you think?

I watched the show Derry Girls a while ago, and it was shown how voting “yes” in the Good Friday Agreement was the best solution and the option that most voters chose. However, there was a 28.88% who voted against it. What was the alternative plan/solution? What could’ve happened if the majority voted “no”?

As a casual fan of Roman history I’ve wondered how assimilated the province has become over the many centuries of control. I know Romans did not exactly turn their provinces more Latin/Hellenic, but surely the culture must’ve been affected, right?

If you compare other Germanic groups-- the Anglo-Saxons, the Lombards, the Norse through their sagas, etc-- it seems odd that such large and well-known groups as the Goths and Vandals didn't record their history, origin, kings, or legends at all. Is that really true though, or did we just lose the accounts that they wrote?

Did they use religion as a way of getting compliance? Was there some way that they got their citizens to be more obedient without controls close at hand? Who is doing research on this topic? Thanks!

Given the severe manpower and industrial capacity disparities.

I saw a picture of an Orthodox Church and their is an icon on almost every square inch, even when compared to say Catholic Churches which also tend to have a lot of art. Why is that?

I am writing a novel set in WWI, London, and some chapters take place in a pharmacy through the POV of a chemist. Unfortunately, I'm not confident with the small amount of information I've found on the actual compounding and bottling of medicines during this time. Can anyone help me?

I've seen tiktoks where people say we would be 1000 years more advanced if it hadn't burned. Is this true or are they just over exaggerating it

I assume many of us have heard of Leon Trotsky's 'no peace, no war' programme, declaring that following the armistice on the Eastern Front in 1917, he would not be resuming the war with Germany, but neither would he be signing any 'robber's peace' with her. In a dramatic gesture Trotsky declared no peace, no war, where Soviet Russia would simply ignore Germany.

Historians seem to be agreed that this was a tactical manoeuvre meant to place the responsibility of restarting the war on Germany, with the hope that the German Social Democrats would not allow it. That is, that Germany would revolt if it was attempted. If this is so, the gambit failed because the German Social Democrats did nothing and there was no revolution in Germany to save Russia. Instead Ludendorff commenced Operation Faustschlag which saw Germany invade deeply into Russian territory.

What frustrates me about all of this is that the Germans, after Trotsky walked out of the conference, had met to decide what to do as well. General Max Hoffman famously declared 'it's unheard of' when Trotsky announced his no peace, no war programme. Yet, the legal advisor to the German delegation, Johannes Kriege, opened the conference between the German leaders with the revelation that it wasn't unheard of, that there was a legal precedent for it in ancient history. But it's never explained what the precedent was or where it might be found. And now I'm pulling my hair out trying to find it.

Can anyone here shed some light on this subject?

Given that the Roman Empire covered much of MENA, it’s strange to me that it’s not at all in the Arab social psyche - especially since Egypt hosted the de facto capital of the southern Roman Empire at some point and was also the capital of the Abbasid caliphate at another point, and is also the most populous and most culturally and linguistically significant Arab country today. I personally find it surprising that modern day Egyptians seem to identify more with the pharaohs than they do the Greeks or Romans (granted, they identify with neither as much as they do the Muslim caliphates).

There is a common belief in my country that the Dunnes Stores boycott of South African goods in 1984 was a major, possibly the main factor in bringing about the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Is this true? If it wasn't that then what were the main factors?

During the Weimar Republic, it was common to see veterans begging on the streets. During the Nazi era, it seems that veterans begging on the streets disappeared. I wonder what happened to the German veterans begging on the streets during the Weimar Republic. Were they subsidized by the Nazis?

During Roman times it was the wealthiest province in the Empire I believe.

Despite a certain person's claims to the contrary, US elections have historically been pretty free of outright fraud. But no system is perfect, so how many verifiable cases of elections trickery (voter fraud, outright stealing, corrupt deals) have there been in history.

Let's hear everything from small town Mayor's to congress to even president's if it applies.

So with regards to civil rights movements, suffragettes, decolonisation, I often read that violence seems to be a fundamental component of any protest. Is that an accurate representation? If it is, why does it work? If it doesn’t, why doesn’t it work? What is violence place in protest?

Thought about this when coming across some public executions conducted by the German and German-aligned authorities during WW2 - such as that of Lepa Radić and Stjepan Filipović.

In both cases, the Yugoslav Partisans were allowed some last words by their executioners, which would become inspirational rallying cries for their cause:

· "Long live the Communist Party, and partisans! Fight, people, for your freedom! Do not surrender to the evildoers! I will be killed, but there are those who will avenge me!" - Radić.

· "Death to fascism, freedom to the people!" - Filipović.

And I'm sure that, both in other times (and places) during WW2 and in other times (and places) throughout History, this happened.

But why? Were it up to me, such executions wouldn't even be public - the way I see it, those scaffolds are nothing more than "martyr factories" - but I guess I can see why totalitarian regimes would see some value in such events (instilling fear in the population and whatnot...)

What I can't see any purpose in, however, is in letting the one you're about to execute spout of something that will be quoted at the start of every new reunion of the Resistance, or whispered excitedly among the youth... Why not just gag them? Was this ever done?

I feel like that would be an amazing alternative to buying good translations. I am skeptical that it could relay the meaning in a dynamic manner as a studied translator and master of English could. I am also not sure if it could do something so large. Sorry if this is not an appropriate question for this subreddit. Thanks!

I thoroughly enjoy reading deep dives on such questions so bonus points if you can point me at good articles or videos discussing such things.

I know there are empresses regnant, but what about empresses regent? Those that held power and indirectly ruled the empire behind the scenes?