Sorry if this question is in bad taste, but I'm extremely curious as to why the Nazi's in WWII didn't complete starve the prisoners to death after they had setup the death camps.

The transportation of millions of people to the death camps seems like a very time and resource consuming task - two things they were in great need of given they were fighting a two front war. So why even bother operating these death camps when they could have simply let them starve out?

My understanding is that the prisoners were severely malnourished, living off of 50 to 300 grams of bread along with some soup per day, but such awful malnourishment is still different from just outright denying any and all food. They already had them imprisoned in concentration camps, and weakened from these low rations, so wouldn't it have been an easier task to just stop the flow of rations and let them starve out?

For what purpose did they continue to feed them despite also sending them to death camps?

Was it as Chaotic as depicted, as deadly? Did the crowd just mercilessly charge through the gates with pitchforks and slaughter everyone inside? Or was there more of a diplomatic aspect to it?

The 17th century version of Sleeping Beauty by Perrault is the first that involves a ban on spinning wheels, according to Wikipedia. In that time period, didn't many women spend much of their time spinning? How much worse in terms of time and effort is e.g. a drop spindle than a spinning wheel, and how bad would banning spinning wheels be for most people? Would it have been a bit of an inconvenience or a big economic hit?

I looked through the recommended reading list, but nothing seemed to quite fit. I'm interested in religion, social structure, and daily life - particularly the lives of women. I'm no scholar, so the easier to digest, the better. Thank you!

I have an audition due in a couple weeks for a major western that will be filming in 2023. I am portraying a “Registration Clerk” on a Camp (assuming a Army Camp) in Utah.

Im looking for advice about accurate wardrobe (from chest up), hair style, hygiene or anything else that can help depict a realistic portrayal of that era.

Perhaps movie/documentary suggestions that depict that era.

I appreciate any feedback! ✌️

I just learned that peppers originated from Mexico during the Columbian exchange. As spicy food is a huge part of Southern Asian cuisine today, I can't imagine what it would be like without peppers. Did they eat spicy food at all? Did they use other spices like black peppers or Sichuan peppercorns or ginger? Or was there no spicy food at all(the horror...)

Why does racism exist? When did it start?

For example: Queen Elizabeth ll’s husband was not called King Philip, but he was called Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Why is there this weird rule?

It seems as though the USSR under Stalin checks all the boxes for fascism. I’m only going off the definition of the word and don’t know much about what really defines a fascist government.

I'm a linguist. And while in the shower given the news of the queens passing. It occurred to me that all of the traditional names of English Royalty are via French. Henry, Richard, George, etc are all Germanic in origin, but filtered through Old French and Norman French before arriving on the English throne... For obvious reasons.

None of them are native English names: Except one. "Edward". None of the Old English names seemed to have survived the Norman conquest except Edward and occasionally a prince being named Edmund.

The last Anglo-Saxon King was Edward the Confessor. Then the Norman Edward Long shanks took the Throne and named on his son's Edward and Edmund

Why did the Norman nobility take a big enough liking to the "Ed" names for Edward to be the only Native English traditional Monarch name; while the others got supplanted by French or biblical names

I'm currently in a history class in college covering Mesopotamia and the birth of Judaism. They say that what separated the hebrews from other early religions and groups as a whole was their belief in one god. Of course this is true, but didn't the stories of the torah, specifically about god Yahweh, come from several different stories about different gods? Although our textbook ignores it, I seem to recall earliest Hebrew mythology as being polytheistic, Yahweh being known as the jealous god. Eventually as different tribes conquered and fell and grew into one tribe, stories were absorbed and eventually ended up being associated with the one recognized god yahweh. Maybe I'm just going crazy and I've misremembered or mixed up mythologies. Can someone clear things up for me?

I love the Middle Ages and I’m hoping to one day teach the subject or write about it.

If someone wrote a book about President Dwight David Eisenhower, they'd refer to the president as "Eisenhower," on second reference. This holds up for just about every American.

And there are some Roman figures for which this holds. Gaius Julius Caesar is often named, on second reference, "Caesar."

But Marcus Aurelius Antoninus is often, "Marcus" on second reference. Rarely is he referred to as "Antoninus" or "Aurelius". His brother by adoption and co-emperor, Lucius Verus, is usually called Verus on second reference.

Publius Ovidius Naso is known to us as "Ovid," which is a simplification of his nomen. Why use that instead of his prenomen or cognomen?

• Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus? Either his nomen, Fabius, or his nickname "The Delayer."
• Tiberius Caesar Augustus? Prenomen on second reference.
• Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus? Nomen on second reference.
• Marcus Antonius was called Antonius by Plutarch, but modern English writers generally call him Mark Antony. So obviously modern people aren't entirely forced to adhere to tradition.

The repeated names objection:

I have a feeling that someone is going to say that these seemingly random choices are based on the fact that other parts of their names were used by famous ancestors/prior emperors, so historians drew on whatever part of the name would set the person apart.

But that hardly makes sense.

The Romans solved this problem themselves by using "the younger", and "the elder," as in Cato the Younger and Cato the Elder.

And today we easily set people apart with the same name with a middle name or initial. I.E., George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, both called Bush on second reference.

So, why the random name choices?

Queen Elizabeth II has died this afternoon at Balmoral as the head of state for the United Kingdom and 14 Commonwealth realms. She died at the age of 96 following a 70 year long reign, the longest reigning monarch of British history. We understand that her passing will lead to many historical questions about her, and we have provided this thread for the purpose of keeping them in one place.

We do ask that questions are specifically about Elizabeth II rather than about the broad history of the British monarchy, and reiterate that our normal rules apply including the 20 year rule.

As the title says, I'm wondering if there are recommendations for good books on middle imperial Chinese court culture, focusing on the Tang and Song dynasties (I don't really know much about this period, but I suspect there's probably a decent bit of difference between them).

I'm not a historian and don't have much experience with history except for pop history such as youtube, so I'm looking for something relatively accessible, but I'd also prefer something that does a bit more of a deep dive than standard pop history books.

The aspects I'm personally interested in is how political factions worked, but also the roles of people like the various imperial consorts, and how imperial court politics was influenced by other factors in China such as noble families in other regions of China.

Byzantium is just the continuation of the eastern part of the Roman Empire, so when did we start considering it to be its own political entity, completely different from the Roman Empire itself?