While British and French forces ultimately supported the Qing, did the Heavenly Kingdom have any vocal sympathizers in the West? If so, did any of these supporters attempt to support Taiping efforts directly (perhaps financially or directly militarily)? Was there sympathy for the Heavenly Kingdom in other parts of East Asia such as Japan or Vietnam?

I am a Caucasian living in Canada and I've noticed that what I can describe as north American cuisine is mostly quite simple compared to other world cultures. I'm not talking about food that's served in restaurants, but things that families cooked for dinner.

I can identify a few things that are the typical style that I've experienced in my life. Most typical foods are either casserole based, pot based, or a slab of meat with a side. These don't all have that complicated recipes to make. Largely just cut up ingredients, throw together, add a few spices, and put in an oven, in a pot, or sear some seasoned meat. Typically only one, maybe two cooking steps per dish.

Compare this to say traditional Indian food where the complexity in each individual dish is much greater with more cooking steps. Similar things are observed in most other ethnicities, such as Japanese, Chinese, Ethiopian, Mexican, middle eastern, etc. I've even noticed more complexity in Caucasian European food dishes such as French or German cuisine.

So what happened historically that made the American majority culture prepare more simple foods? Was there some shift that caused this to happen?

I've been reading about the Cuban missile crisis recently and this element has so far been completely glossed over. It seems like an absurdly reckless move that would inevitably lead to a crisis (though if you think otherwise I'd be eager to hear your view). Did Krushchev really expect that Kennedy would just sit back and let the USSR stockpile missiles in the US' backyard? Was he just hoping they would go unnoticed? What was the thought process here?

how realistic was mutually assured destruction in the 50s/60s before the invention of ICBMs? the cuban missile crisis was as close as we've been (so far...) to nuclear war but my understanding is that it was precipitated because there were some medium-range missiles in cuba that could hit part of the US mainland, but not all of it.

let's say arkhipov is overruled and the torpedo is fired - it's the start of nuclear war. how likely is it that it would have actually led to the total nuclear apocalypse situation that "mutually assured destruction" implies?

I often hear many different accounts. Some saying it was a complete hell and others saying it was like fighting for any other army. A few specifics were how brutal was the Soviet Army? Was the average soldier treated well and put into less deadly strategies or was it how it was depicted in popular media? (*Soviet Army for title. Sorry I am tired)

I often heard that late medieval scholastic philosophy became absurd in the questions it asked, the example always given is that philosophers would debate ‘how many angels could dance on the head of a pin’. Did any serious philosopher ever actually ask this question? Or was this just an absurd question dreamed up by the opponents of scholasticism?

And if anyone ever did seriously ask the question, what’s the answer?

During the war nazis used pervitin and allies used benedrine as an stimulant and allow troops to fight days at time. Benzedrine is amphetamine based and pervitin is methamphetamine based.

Nowdays we use amphetamine, methamphetamine or other stimulant based drugs to treat ADHD.

So did soldiers with ADHD who were issued with stimulants just pretend they were stimulated because of peer pressure or just reported that drugs weren't working?

In 'When Titans Clashed' by Glantz and House, they use the phrase above to describe what a couple of German units did when facing the Soviet units exploiting the encirclement at Stalingrad.

I'm guessing it means preventing a hole in the line from becoming bigger, but I was wondering if it had any more significant meaning.

I'm not a medievalist, but the readings I've done have left me with the impression that during the High Middle Ages, the thing that distinguished kings from the princes and magnates of their realms was less their power and authority, and more their sacral role.

John France discusses the nature of governance in Western Europe during the Age of the Crusades

Landownership was the distinguishing characteristic of the ruling elites of western Europe. In itself it conferred power, as it always had. Kings claimed an overarching sovereignty and proclaimed that others exercised governmental power only as their delegates. But in practice they were not sharply distinguished from other landowners, who shared their authority rather than acted as its agents. Nor was the pattern of royal ownership in any way different from that of other powerful men and women. [...]

Throughout our period the primary form of wealth was land, and everywhere its ownership on any scale gave quasi-governmental powers. Landed property was seen in a very absolute sense and its very concrete nature tended to overshadow sovereignty, for power sprang from possession of land. To be a king was of necessity to be first landlord of the realm, a position which merged into that of other landlords and blurred the distinction between the king and others, and that between sovereignty and ownership. [...]

In fact, there was a deep confusion of what for us are two separate concepts – sovereignty and ownership. Every kingdom was a lordship and every king had the preoccupations of a landowner: every lordship resembled a kingdom and its holders felt entitled to some of the perquisites of a king.

To what extent did this also hold true for the earlier Carolingian kingdom? Did the magnates exercise much autonomous authority in their capacity as magnates, or was the whole realm run by the royal bureaucracy?

Did they recruit from the poor or lower classes like the Romans?

Was there a Chinese equivalent to the Marian Reforms in the Han Army?

Did they also promise land and loot to prospective soldiers?

Was Freddy Red Beard impressed by the remaining Roman Empire’s infrastructure? Impressed by Constantinople?

I know the HRE didn’t really have a capitol like Rome or Constantinople but did he have any desire to build an impressive city upon his return as the “true Emperor”?

I’ve been reading lots of novels based in the Victorian era, and have come across an instance of the main character paying a significant amount of money to “buy a living”.

How did this work? Could one pick any living they wished, and were any qualifications needed beforehand? How long would the “apprenticeship” last, and would they be paid a salary while learning the trade?

Also, I’m interested in knowing if this was only an option for the upper classes, or was it something the middle class man did too? Would a man have to choose between going to university or buying a living? If going to university, what age would the person be normally, and would they have to buy a living once they graduated?

Sorry for the influx of questions, but thanks in advance!

Hello all, I am doing a research project on the Seminole in Florida and the effects that Indian Removal had on them. Unfortunately, my PA college library has very limited resources related to either the Seminole or Indian Removal. I know it resulted in the Second Seminole War, and I'm going to follow that angle as much as I can, but I'd really appreciate any other resources that anyone can direct me towards. Thank you so much!

So obviously, the British army allowed the purchase of commissions, but it was still possible to gain promotion on merit.

So this has me wondering a few things:

• How likely was promotion on merit? What percentage of officers could expect to advance that way?

• Were certain ranks more likely on merit than others? i.e. it was easy enough to move into a Captaincy on merit, but you might stall out if you lacked the funds to gain a Majorship?

• Did purchase still come into play at the highest echelons of command, or was that all merit based? i.e. what was the last advancement in rank that could be purchased? I assume that Wellington didn't need to pay for his Field Marshal-ship, nor did the guys running things at Horse Guards, but I believe many a Colonel bought his position, so where did it end?

How sudden was the eventual realization?

For example of other countries of the Warsaw Pact, the Polish people "got it" on 24th June 1976 when huge price increases were announced that lead to massive protests and rioting, whereas in Romania it happened more gradually, starting in 1978 but getting really dire only in 1982 when wages started getting withheld.

How many people were in disbelief of the acknowledged economic problems when the Perestroika began?

The Aeneid mentions Aeneas, the founder of the Roman race, as the son of Venus, and it seems Ennius does in his Annales earlier. Why did Rome choose Venus for its founding deity and not Jupiter or any of the other deities in their pantheon? When was this choice first made?

Doctor Who is blessed/cursed with a very dedicated fandom which has managed to retrieve and restore some of the lost episodes, but do similar efforts exist for other shows?