I'm currently reading John Dickie's Cosa Nostra (I know it has been criticized for its pulpy detective story approach but I suppose it will do for a reader who previously knew nothing about the subject) and one thing strikes me as odd. The author repeatedly underscores the enormous illegitimate wealth the leading members of Cosa Nostra were able to mass. Just the same, each time we are talking about concrete sums, the numbers have eight or nine digits.

For example, it is mentioed that 125 million lires worth of Salvatore Riina's property was confiscated by the end of 1995, mostly real estate. (He was arrested in January 1993.) Dickie makes clear more was to come, but it is still presented as a large sum. However, 125 million lires in 1993 was less than 100,000 dollars. Not much for the most powerful member of a massive criminal organization.

A pentito named Salvatore Cancemi estimated his wealth as 33 million lires. Sounds like a lot, except that it isn't: something like 20,000 in 1993 dollars. Even an average middle-class person who owns his or her apartment can be several times more wealthy.

Do I underestimate how poor Sicily was in the 1990's, has the translator made a mistake (I'm reading the book in Finnish, and Finnish translators always stumble with large numbers as Finland uses the long scale), were these guys really good at hiding their wealth, or am I missing something?

I've seen it said from several sources that during the American Civil War some soldiers were able to save up their pay in order to privately purchase repeating rifles to use instead of their standard issue muzzle-loaders. My main question is if they were also expected to supply their own ammunition for these weapons? Or if the Ordinance Department simply had to keep track of which formations contained repeater users and supply them with ammunition for the various rifles?

Today, it's so common to see complaints about how our education system was designed 100 years ago and hasn't adapted to the current time, or doesn't serve the needs of all students. During the age when public education was first taking hold, did people hold similar views that the existing system was outdated? Were there concerns about social justice, eg. equitable access for new immigrants or blacks? Where can I read about views on education from that time?

In school I was only taught about him being the king of England during the American Revolution, and I feel like that’s what he’s mostly remembered for. Did he do anything else of significance during his reign? Was he well respected or was he an infamous ruler over the British Empire during his reign? Thank you.

In Cisleithania, Article 19 of the Basic State Act of 1867 stated:

“All races of the empire have equal rights, and every race has an inviolable right to the preservation and use of its own nationality and language. The equality of all customary languages in school, office and public life, is recognized by the state. In those territories in which several races dwell, the public and educational institutions are to be so arranged that, without applying compulsion to learn a second country language, each of the races receives the necessary means of education in its own language.”

In Transleithania, language was taken as an indicator of ethnicity. The 1868 Hungarian Law on the Equality of Nationalities begins:

“Since all citizens of Hungary, according to the principles of the constitution, form from a political point of view one nation — the indivisible unitary Hungarian nation — of which every citizen of the fatherland is a member, no matter to what nationality he belongs: since, moreover, this equality of right can only exist with reference to the official use of various languages of the country, and only under special provisions, in so far as is rendered necessary by the unity of the country and the practical possibility of government and administration; the following rules will serve as standard regarding the official use of the various languages, while in all other matters the complete equality of the citizens remained untouched.”

Were these laws applied to the Roma minority? If so, where could I find more information about these schools?

Question inspired by the show Watchmen. I don't expect the show to be accurate but are there any real-life instances of people fight back against their power?

Bonus question, were there legal cases won against white people assaulting or killing black people right after the civil war? Could racist whites commit crimes against black with impunity?

Looking at recordings of his speeches now, with the theatrical gesticulating, shrill yelling, weird rage and completely over-the-top worship of country... I just find him ridiculous. If I didn't know that he was genocidal monster I wouldn't take him the least bit seriously. Is my mindset just the result of a more cynical age? Was this something people in general could buy into in that period, or was his success due to the very particular elements at play in Germany at the time?

What did people who weren't absorbed in his personality cult think of his performances?

Another way of asking the question would be: how long has the conception that the geographical region we know today as China, notwithstanding its vast land area and historically heterogeneous population, should be a unified political entity been around, and have there been any prominent arguments against it?

Edit: oops, I meant 1916-1928; also, the period is part of modern China, not ancient China :/

I've read up on the smallpox vaccination process and it is brutal. As a "live antigen" vaccine, it is applied by repeatedly pricking a spot with an infected two pronged needle then caring for that spot for a week so it doesn't spread. What's more, there's a real chance that it could develop into an actual disease. It seems crazy that a vaccination campaign with that was successful when modern-day vaccination campaigns with much safer vaccines are facing resistance.

By far the allies won the intelligence game and both in agent infiltration and battlefield knowledge, Germany was abysmally awful. How were their efforts to stop allied intelligence gathering and espionage on the other hand? I’ve found little information on how well the Abwehr and SD countered Allied efforts.

My understanding of the India/Pakistan split is that it was primarily motivated on religious terms.

Sikh majority Punjab doesn't really fit into the ideological split of Muslim majority Pakistan and Hindu majority India.

Talking about the post-Marian Republican and early imperial Rome, when fighting armoured opponents, such as other Roman legions in a civil war, what sort of weapons would they use considering the gladius seems better suited to stab lightly armoured opponents? (Unless my perception on Roman infantry warfare is off, please clarify it for me if so.)

If so, who were they? Where did they come from? What were Ottoman policies regarding mercenaries?

Constantinople didn't fall into Ottoman hands untill 1453, yet Sofia (present Bulgarian capital) fell in 1382. I am aware that the Byzantines were extremely weakened at that time and lost Gallipoli to the Ottomans which served as a base for operations for future eastern European invasions.

I imagine a time were Constantinople was encircled by Ottomans who ignored the Byzantine capital for 71 more years and made several campaigns in eastern Europe until they eventually conquered it. Were there no failed attempts by either the Byzantines to reconquer lost lands leading to Europe or by the Ottomans to take Constantinople before entering Europe? Were Christian western powers (Holy Roman Empire, Venice, the Pope) not concerned by this Muslim intrusion?

I come into this question with an assumption which I'm aware might be wrong, namely that the newly-empowered communists would've been ideologically wary about giving over many of these buildings to local officials or notables. I'm sure that at least a few were used as Party residences or variously repurposed into government buildings or public housing depending on their locations, but what of the rest? Was there a rapid drive to repurpose and/or remodel them for new intent, and if so what were their common final states? What factors contributed to differences in outcome between one mansion and another?

(By-the-by: I've asked this question for the Soviet Union specifically in order to keep answers focused, but I would welcome an answer from the perspective of any communist nation.)

At least in the global West, the distinctions between decades were dramatic, comparing for example the early 1910s to the late 1920s, or the 1950s to the 1960s. Massive changes occurred in short periods of time.

Did material and social changes cycle as rapidly in former centuries as well, or was this a byproduct of factors exclusive to the 20th century?

My understanding is that most medieval warfare consisted of raiding to forage for supplies, enrich the raiders, economically and logistically weaken the opposition, and damage the legitimacy of the opposing warrior-aristocrats as peacekeepers. Pitched battle was risky and often not decisive, while sieges took either lots of time and supplies or costed many troops when attempting to storm the castle or being struck by disease, thus most commanders pursued the low risk and relatively reasonable reward of raiding while avoiding battles and sieges as much as was feasible while still attaining their objectives.

However, I don't really have a good mental picture of what this raiding and ravaging entailed besides pillaging all moveable wealth that can carried be out of vulnerable villages and towns, burning what couldn't be carried if it was advantageous, and otherwise abusing unarmed people in the region. Local magnates would have wanted to have their knights to defeat these incursions, if only to protect their tax-base and honorable reputation, which should have resulted in numerous small scale clashes between raiding knights and defending knights but I have no idea what these fights would look like. Perhaps this was a good environment for showcasing individual prowess, bravery, valor, etc.?

• What tactics did knights use when working in these small groups? In particular, were there tactics and practices used in these small combats that were not used in pitched battles?

I have also heard that Western European armies in the Middle Ages were composed predominantly out of small or large groups of (semi-)professional soldiers whom, within these conroi/retinues/companies/etc., had usually trained and/or fought together as these groups before becoming part of a given army. It would seem intuitive that these smaller but more permanent groups would have been able to foot the training necessary to reliably execute sophisticated tactics that wouldn't be possible when having to work as part of the ad hoc armies of the period, and would have done so if it was advantageous.

• How, if at all, did tournament activities help prepare for this sort of combat that wasn't part of the rare pitched battle or drawn out siege?

I have seen medieval tournaments described as having been regarded as a form of military training for knights, as well as showy and sometimes lucrative displays of prowess. Did events like the melee, jousts, etc. reflect what knights would do during raids when they encountered one another?

• Were the tactics used in pitched battle often tactics used by raiding parties scaled up and simplified to fit ad-hoc medieval armies?

The last question is prompted by a vaguely remembered claim stating that the feigned retreat was a maneuver used by knights in skirmishes and raids, often to draw pursuing forces into ambushes, and thus was a traditional and well-honed practice merely scaled up for use in cases such as the Battle of Hastings. It sounds like it would be most practical to limit battle tactics and maneuvers to those that these cohesive and trained but small units of troops are familiar with given that they wouldn't have trained to operate together as larger units as later standing armies would.

Despite the fact that Barras seized power after the Thermidorian Reaction and led the French Directory, I cannot find a single biography of him or much attention being paid to him in comparison to say Danton or Robespierre. Why is this? Thank you!

So, why did Nazi WW2 survivors go to Argentina of all places? Was there a large reason for this, such as an alliance or German protocol, or was it just a safe place to go?

This might be a bit a bizarrely specific question, but I attended a Reformed college and during one of our discussions in a course I've since forgotten I remember my professor mentioning in an offhand way that the early followers of John Calvin kept journals of their daily habits in an attempt to notice in those habits "evidences of grace" that would confirm their status as among the elect.

I haven't been able to find any scholarly information on whether this indeed occurred, but it seemed to strangely specific that I have a hard time imagining it to be entirely fabricated. Thanks for your time!