If I needed to become one, how would that even work? Show up with a bunch of money and demand to be considered a higher class citizen?

Or was there really no hope for our hypothetical soon-to-be Dionysus made flesh - as far as we can tell, due to a lack of historical records?

Also, a little bonus question: How much denarii or sesterii or, well... currencii would it have at least taken to get to this point, and how wealthy (rough estimate) would that be considered today?

Or would I only be able to buy a couple of fancy-pants items but still be considered a filthy peasant by even the pettiest of lords?

From 1975 to 1991, Cuba gave support to the socialist MPLA party in the form of soldiers and civil aid workers. From what I have read, the decision to do so was independent of Soviet influence, so it wasn't by proxy (although the Soviet did support the Cubans with logistics and transportation).

The official Cuban statement is that they were protecting Angolan from imperialists and the racists in South AFrica and they were fulfilling some sort of socialist internationalism. This sounds somewhat dubious, but the Cubans were also quite involved with the Angolan healthcare and education after its supremacy was secured, so it could be plausible.

I also have read that the Cuba were interested in the natural resources of Angola, and there was some sort of cooperation between the two. Cuba was affected by the US embargo and it did not want to rely solely on the Soviet Union for help.

Obviously the Cubans did not do it for free, they benefited somehow, but I am wondering if it was genuinely helping Angolan as part of their ideology or mostly helping for profit.

After fighting for and with the United States, I am sure he had at least some disappointment to America not helping him with his revolution in France. However, he was a smart man and surely understood the reasons behind staying out of it.

I was watching Seven Samurai, and one of the big points is how the farmers acquired lot of armor and weapons by killing soldiers who ran from a battle. Did this ever happen or was recorded in history?

I know that the French and Polish resistance were quite well known for putting up a fight against the Nazis. Was there anything similar going on when the roles were switched?

I understand a replacement shuttle being commisioned as was the case with the Challenger disaster. But what was the need to have four fully operational space shuttles at the same time when we never sent more than one in to space at a time? I'm excluding Endeavor and only stating four because initially four orbital shuttles were constructed, i just can't find why so many.

This is something I've heard thrown around when discussing Napoleon never being able to secure a true peace. People say that the other monarchs found him unacceptable because they saw him as "Robespierre on horseback", the revolution itself come to get them. That he was illegitimate, a false monarch, stuff like that.

How many Italians in Piemonte today have French heritage from the Kingdom of Savoy?

I know that they are the same thing but I was wondering when the name changed from eastern Rome to the Byzantine empire. If I remember correctly the people called themselves Romans but then why wouldn’t they call the country Eastern Rome.

Also what would surrounding countries have referred to them as?

In another question about the Holocaust, there is a copypasta about Holocaust questions. The second paragraph of the section on holocaust denial says this. My questions are: what are the current open questions about the holocaust and what would books in 1950 or so have said? Was holocaust denial a position any serious and respected historian/scholar would have taken so close to the event?

It is absolutely true that were you to read a book written in 1950 or so, you would find information which any decent scholar today might reject, and that is the result of good revisionism. But these changes, which even can be quite large, such as the reassessment of deaths at Auschwitz from ~4 million to ~1 million, are done within the bounds of respected, academic study, and reflect decades of work that builds upon the work of previous scholars, and certainly does not willfully disregard documented evidence and recollections. There are still plenty of questions within Holocaust Studies that are debated by scholars, and there may still be more out there for us to discover, and revise, but when it comes to the basic facts, there is simply no valid argument against them.

I’ve heard about there being some tension between the 2 powers in the 1920’s and there even speculation about war. So I wondered is this true and is it comparable to lets say American-Soviet tensions during the cold war?

Do we know how ancient Egyptian melodies sounded? I assume there is plenty of archeological evidence about which instruments they used. Is there any evidence, such as something similar to sheet music, that tells us the melodies that were played on the instruments? Could we recreate today what Egyptians were listening to back in the day?

I saw a post that said that minimum wage hasn't changed in the past ten years, but rent increased from ~$880/month to ~$1,480/month.

What's the underlying cause that started this trend, though? Minimum wage used to be a living wage, when did it stop being such, and why?

i know that mussolini, hitler and stalin sent troops and supplies to the nationalists (mussolini and hitler) and the republicans (stalin) but overall how significant was foreign involvement in the nationalist victory in the spanish civil war

*Asterisk because the question could really apply to any prominent historical figure before modern ideas of sexual identity

So, the question of Frederick the Great's sexual preferences is perhaps surprisingly frequently-discussed, though sometimes light on details. I'm aware that he lived in an era with an understanding of identity and its interaction with sexual behavior that is different from our own, and I'm am aware of the events of his life taken as signalling one way or another. I'm frankly far less interested in the answer to the question of Frederick's sexuality itself than the broader aspect: does it matter what a premodern historical figure's sexual identity might be by our modern standards?

My first instinct is no: there's no point in retroactively imposing modern ideas of sexual identity on historical figures, no more than it would be reasonable to ascribe notions of nationhood onto the first farmers of the neolithic. But I'm also aware of accusations of "erasure" in academia, and accusations that there exists some effort, conscious or no, to diminish or downplay the contribution to history or presence of individuals who fall outside heteronormative boundaries. Given that some of these individuals are used as by various ideological groups as exempla for idealized or heroic character within a heteronormative framework (Frederick himself being an example, as the idealized Prussian/German warrior in the late 19th and 20th centuries) it feels like there's some real consequences there.

So, ultimately, from the perspective of academics/historians: does it matter whether or not 'X' historical figure would be considered gay by contemporary standards? If it ever does, when does it?

Why didn't (in the time of the American civil war) Mexico take the opportunity to take back Texas, but instead of fighting the US they take on the CSA?

I've tried to look this up via google but with no luck. What was the cost, both in coinage if it was used or in trade, to mill grain? What would the miller have charged? I know that in medieval literature, Chaucer for example, millers are often portrayed as being corrupt or greedy. But what does that look like in terms of what you would pay the miller?