[deleted]

Did they have most of the controls on their own? Or relying on the Ottoman Empire?

Was censorship something that only happened post hoc, or could a writer, or a filmaker, etc. contact the relevant authorities before publication?

I'm looking into the British Home Service as it was around the end of the the 19th century. I know they wore a dark blue pith-like helmet, but I can't find what kind of uniform it would have gone with. Did the Brits at this point use their red jackets at home, or was there already a kaki push, cfr. the Boer Wars?

I'm not all that well-versed in the specifics of the relations of the Rome papacy and the Byzantines/Constantinople other than what was taught at university. The Great Schism, and thus the break of Communion between Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches, didn't happen until 1054. So would this mean that the Pope was under the "authority" of the Byzantine emperor as the Patriarchs were, or did the Pope have a level of autonomy to rule over the Papal States as a sort of independent figure. If any of these, did the Pope have the legal/reserved authority to crown Charlemagne as Emperor, or would that not have been allowed since the Byzantine emperors and empire saw themselves as the continuation of Rome and the Roman emperors

I hope this question makes sense. It's more of a topic of legality that I couldn't seem to have found and am curious if Pope Leo III had legal justification

So I've been thinking a lot about the invasion of Russia (and playing a lot of Napoleon: Total War) and I've been wondering: why invade Moscow? Wasnt St. Petersburg the actual capital of Russia at the time? Why not hug the coast, invading coastal cities, and then go for St. Pete?

Unlike most Chinese dynasties that have seperate names like Eastern and Western Han or Northern and Southern Song, these two Jin dynasties have nothing to do with each other. One lasted from 265-420 after the 3 Kingdoms period, while the other lasted from 1115-1234 and is at its core a Manchurian dynasty which ended up invading the northern half of China.

The first one I mentioned I've only ever seen called the Jin Dynasty, while the second one I've seen called the Northern Jin, the Great Jin, and the Jurchen Jin (to my understanding, Jurchen was the previous term for Manchurian). Is Jin Dynasty a shorthand for one or both of them and they have official, distinguishing names, or is it just a difference one knows through context?

I'm from Georgia btw so that can help you answer my question

It seems like all answers I get to this question is some version of these two extremes. Now my question obviously makes the assumption the West is globally dominant, which probably deserves some clarification by what I mean by the West and what I mean by dominant.

The West defined as Europe, US, Canada, Australia. Dominant defined as a complication of global influence, technological and scientific contributions (as proxied by Nobel Laureates and inventions), and military power.

Also, if anyone has any recommendations for the American colonial period for history in the Philippines I would be interested in some reading material.

Assuming they are time travelers, of course.

The idea of a witch, etymologically going back to old Anglo-Saxon roots, seems to be considerably older than the famous witch persecutions of the early modern period. So how would a Medieval Englishperson have conceived of a witch?

Were witches simply regarded as an antiquated pagan superstition, or possibly a suitable fictitious monster for bedtime stories?

Did people think witches were real, but that they were obviously monsters (along the lines of a hag from Dungeons & Dragons or Grendel's mother from Beowulf or the like), so there would be no suspicion that, say, a cantankerous old woman who isn’t a green-skinned monster with sharp teeth might be a witch?

Or did popular conceptions of witchcraft not change much compared to the early modern period, and it was mainly the ecclesiastical and judicial authorities converging toward the popular view that changed? Would a Medieval peasant or baker have ideas broadly similar to those of early modern conceptions like the Malleus Maleficarum, even if contemporary priests or judges would have largely dismissed them?

This need not apply solely to Medieval England, and could apply to other pre-Early Modern periods in Britain (Anglo-Saxon, Brythonic, Roman), or to places outside of England that went on to take part in the EM witch craze (Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Sweden, etc), or both.

Specifically what a woman would have worn. I’m looking to do a Boudica costume for Halloween and would love as much detail as possible.

I recall that the emperor saying that Mulan dishonored the chinese army by disguising herself as a woman. Since he listed it along with assuming a false identity and destruction of property, I assume that the damage done to the honor (whatever it may be) was non-negotiable.
So...what I want to know is if Mulan actually did screw people over in her masquerade, and how badly, and if she knew what she was putting on the line.

Things like the Sherman Anti-Trust act was alive only in name because the courts struck it down, and it wasn’t until Theodore Roosevelt that there was action taken against big business. What caused this sentiment among the party?