Trying Again....

In Marco Polo's Travels he describes the sexual customs of some Asian cultures. Specifically he refers to several times the sharing of one's wife and daughters with guests. He describes this in areas like China's North-west in modern Xinjiang (Kashgar and Hami) and in his travels in Tibet and southern China (either Qinghai or Sichuan). For example he spoke of the traveler staying in a home while the husband would leave, being encouraged to sleep with the wife and daughters. The traveler would hang their hat on the door indicating that they are still there so the husband wouldn't return.

While I know a lot of what Marco Polo said (either by himself or through Rustichello) is embellished to say the least, are there historical records of these types customs? If not how do historians interpret these portions of Marco Polo's travels?

I get they were divided on slavery and united in their dislike for Andrew Jackson, but what else did they agree on and what did they try to achieve while in government?

I have not been able to find much information specific to the 'office'. The title 'president elect' has been used for decades, but it seems to be an unofficial term. If it is an unofficial term, when did it start being used?

I have been able to find information about the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, but it does not have info about an official office for the president elect (that I know of).

Please remove if this is not within the sub rules! Thank you!

Please note that my knowledge about the Cold War is limited and I am still learning about the whole idea of the Cold War as a whole because it is a big subject and it takes a lot of time to digest.

But something that caught my attention - both Che Guevara and Mao Zedong were revolutionaries but the symbologies that they represent are completely different - they both committed atrocities like Guevara was a harsh disciplinarian who sometimes shot defector and deserters were punished as traitors, and Mao suppressed what he claimed to be counter-revolutionary speech, his reform to tackle poverty involved executing many landlords, and his land reform towards agriculture led to many economic disasters which to lead famine and poverty.

And to my knowledge, when Mao realised his actions towards the proposed "the Great Leap Forward" were a failure, he tried to find other methods which is what lead China to become a more independent nation.

​

Now I am saying this mostly from the knowledge that I have acquired about these two individuals but it is surprising that they were both supporters of the same ideology but end up with different symbolisms.

It seems like every western movie has this trope. But this doesn’t seem to realistic.

Was it ever used?

For example Nordic mythology. How did it happen that Christianity as completely replaced their old religion, which is now seen as just mythology and never real, but Christianity is real? The Norse where not really keen on Christianity as we can see from all the stories and records we have, so how did that happen?

In the 1850s my ancestor left far southwest England for Australia, possibly as part of the 1850s gold-rush. Is there documented experiences of people contemplating emigrating from remote parts of England to Australia, particularly covering what they knew about the destination, how it was communicated to them and how they met the costs and logistics of the journey preparation. I am trying to appreciate what was going through my ancestor’s mind before they embarked. I imagine that the years leading up to gold-rush era there was considerable trepidation and caution but then with that event a mad scramble so I would like to understand both periods. Looking for introductory answer and texts that might introspect their thinking and how the prospect was reflected in their community.

It’s not just in hindsight, but through the lens of 2020 values, Diana would seem unsuitable for Charles.

For me, the primary reasons were that she was a teenager and he was in his 30s, she didn’t have a career or post-secondary education, she was inexperienced and unworldly, and they didn’t know each other. None of these are bad things in and of themselves, and are common in 18-19 year old girls, though I have a hard time seeing what they could contribute to the role of Princess of Wales.

Obviously, people bring up Camilla all the time, but she was married. Since obviously Charles was attracted to women his own age (as Camilla is), why wasn’t the focus on finding Charles finding a mature, worldly woman (I.e. 25 or older) who might have been a more appropriate match for him and could better handle the rigours of Royal life, like Kate Middleton is able to. It was uncommon for 20-year-olds to marry, even in 1980.

Yes, I know this sounds like a shitpost, just hear me out. I'm aware of the "commieblock" architecture throughout former communist countries and I understand that, it's cheap and somewhat reliable. But when scrolling through Google Earth, I noticed multiple cities in former communist countries like Phnom Penh, Ulaanbaatar, Pyongyang, Astana, alot of Siberia and Naypyitaw all have a much higher percentage of houses with blue roofs than the rest of the world, even communist countries in Europe. Is this an Asian cultural thing, was blue paint cheap? What inspired the communists or citizens to build so many blue roofs?

Why didn't Empires like the British Empire, Portuguese Empire relocate their central government to their new colonies? Bigger land, more natural resources. Was it arrogance in thinking their empires will last forever? Britain could of been both Canada and the U.S.

To expand on the question above:

In 1601, France and Savoy formed a Treaty, which in practice disallowed the Spanish access they previously had through Savoy. How did this affect Spanish transport of supplies and men to the possessions passed to the Spanish from the succession of Burgundy? Could Spain still reliably get supplies to the Seventeen States, Franche Comte, etc., If so, how?

I've never heard much of the politics before the first world war. The tradeoffs seem so outrageous. I was wondering if there are any explanations that go beyond the senseless that characterized the war.

Did they have any reactions? or since Germany was losing they did not care much, or what plans did they come up with to counter it?

Why is Hitler considered to be right wing when his party was based on socialism?

I've been working on a fantasy book, and want the combat to be realistic, but I don't know that much about how shields factored into medieval warfare. Were they used by most soldiers, and if so, was there an effective way to get past them?