I've been listening to a newly released album of an Elton John oncert in Moscow in 1979 and it made me wonder, why preform there and how? Was it a statement of international appeal? An anti-war message? What were the logistics of payment and permission like? Elton mentions it being streamed live on the BBC which only makes me more curious, how was the deal hammered out? Elton John seems to me fairly apolitical, but would average Soviet citizens have access to his music or known who he was? If so, how did licencing of records work? My dad claimed when he in East Berlin the record store he visited had barely any pop music and was mostly records of the national anthem or other patriotic songs.

I'm sorry if this is a little vague or breaks any rules.

By 'backwards messages', I mean pieces of songs that, when played backwards, sounded like something else. Think the Beatles song 'Revolution Nine', and how 'Number Nine', played backwards, allegedly sounds like 'Turn me on Deadmun'.

During the IR the working conditions were pretty horrible, the wages were extremely low, even the living conditions in the cities weren't really promising. The workers had a tough working schedule with strict rules. Despite alle that, many people moved from the land, where they probably had their farms, to the cities to work under these conditions. How did that happen? Was living on a farm much worse than I expect right now? Or did the factories/cities have other advantages, I just don't see? Were my assumptions at the beginning wrong?

This questions just popped into my mind when reading a text about the revolution. I'm mainly thinking of the UK in the 18th and 19th century now, but appreciate all answers.

In 1065, upon the death of King Ferdinand of Leon, his realm was split for his sons into 3 roughly equal independent Kingdoms: Castille, Leon, and Galicia.

In 1071 Norman Adventurers formed an independent County of Sicily, only later to be reformed into the Kingdom of Sicily.

Nearly 2 decades later, Crusader leaders installed themselves as independent rulers of the Counties of Edessa and Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. If all of these realms were independent and of roughly the same size, why then were some considered Counties while only one was a Kingdom? If each was owned by a sovereign monarch, creating the new realm and title for themselves, why not all name themselves Kings? Were there practical or customary reasons for newly created monarchs to style themselves Count (which was usually a much lower status title) or Prince, rather than King? Or were these titles merely the whim of those who first held them?

This question comes from the Rhine river that is absolutely vital to German economics and even culture but the mouth of the Rhine lies in another country.

That's like the French keeping hold of Louisiana and the mouth of the Mississippi River, that would have been intolerable for the US.

The Red Baron had a triplane and got 80 kills in WW1 so what gave him the edge over his opponents? Was it the plane or was he just a very skilled pilot? And did the third wing give pilots an advantage?

So basically, I think I have a good grasp of the demographics who supported Democrats (farmers, urban immigrants) and Whigs (merchants, professionals, upper class) in the North (if I’m wrong here please let me know) but what about the South? On one hand, it seems clear that the Whigs and their unionist successors were more dominant in the Upper South, and assuredly among the non-slave owning, poor Appalachian types of that area, while Democrats dominated the Deep South. However, I was looking at some county level maps from the 1840s, and it appeared that the Whigs were mainly winning in the Black Belt area of wealthy slave owners, while Democrats were strong in upland areas like northern Alabama. Is one (or both) of these interpretations inaccurate, and is there some thing I’m missing here?

The United States seems to be the first nation to widely use combat shotguns on the Western Front. Why didn’t the other combatant nations of World War I deploy them earlier?

Sweden was, for example, declared independent during WW2, which led to over 50.000 Norwegian citizens and resistance fighters to evade the Nazis in Norway by traveling across the border. What made Nazi-Germany actually respect a country's wish to stay neutral even when so many were allowed to escape? Their plan was to conquer Europe so why not just take over a relatively easy target as Sweden, the same way as they did with Norway (who also wished to stay Neutral)

Title ^. What was the Mafia doing during the WW2?

The areas I'm most interested in are ballet and the degree to which its participation and patronage was viewed as being gendered, and sporting activities for women.

Did urban men frequently participate in competitive sports? Did women publicly participate in any sports? Were some sports socially (or legally) "forbidden" for women? What about dancing, especially as part of a discipline like ballet, but also informally, like at a gathering? What about singing popular music? Writing poetry? To what degree could someone participate in a hobby that didn't match their assigned role without threatening their social standing?

The time period I had in mind was around the reign of Alexander III right up to 1914, and specifically had St. Petersburg and Moscow in mind, but any other major urban centers within the empire that were connected in arts or sporting culture would be good too (Odessa?).

Thanks!

first off, I apologize if this question has been asked before. But to my question, from what I understand many European Jesuits who traveled to countries like China and Japan went there for the goal of spreading Christianity. Is where any textual evidence to show what said Jesuits thought of the native religions? such as Buddhism, Taoism or Shintoism? I assume they would at least try to have a rudimentary understanding of the major religions of the countries they would travel to or did they not bother at all?

Attended early St Patrick’s Day festivities (in the US) and noticed some men walk by in white armbands. Another spectator became very agitated and upset that the armbands were inappropriate somehow and/or that the wearers must not understand what those bands meant.

A casual search turned up a reference to the painting “A Huguenot on St Bartholomew’s Day” and the massacre and the white armband signifying “an allegiance to Roman Catholicism” but I’m curious about what it might mean present day or recent past.

He has been constantly being refered to as the archetvpe of evil since 1945 and I was wondering if another person (real or fictional) played that role in the common knowledge pre-war. I'm looking for a widely accepted figure, not one specific to only one country.

I'm specifically curious about during the height of the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent in 1520-1566. The Byzantine Empire fell when Constantinople was defeated in 1453; as the years passed, would Christian groups from Europe (either Catholic or Orthodox) have attempted to send any priests, missionaries, or monastic orders such as Franciscans or Jesuits to the Ottoman Empire? Would this have even been allowed? I know that Christians and Jews were given protected status, but were still considered inferior to Muslim citizens.

During this time (1531-32) was also when the Church of England broke away from the Catholic church and that in 1571 is when Pope Pius V completes the formation of the Holy League against the Ottoman Empire. I believe that during this time priests were traveling as far as the Americas, China/Japan, and India; would they have ignored the Ottoman controlled lands or not been allowed in?

​

Thanks!

I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm curious and my quick search of this sub hasn't really revealed anything. But basically: How did and do countries like France and the United Kingdom benefit so highly from their former colonies while Spain, and to a further extent Portugal, currently live in relative poverty in comparison?

Modern historians consider his ascendency to the Persian throne more or less a coup d’etat in which he killed off the legitimate heir to Cambyses and founded his own Dynastie: The Achaemenids. How did he legitimize his rule over the empire? How important was the Zoroastrian god aruamazda in the legitimization of his rule?