I'm asking this partially because the atrocities committed by Japan seem seriously overshadowed by those done by Germany and even USSR during the war. (In popular consciousness.) Regarding post-war plans, we know of Generalplan Ost and so forth from the Nazis, directly stating their genocidal intent.

Did Japan ever make similar plans or documents for the future of areas they planned to conquer? Did these plans include genocidal intent in the same way as Generalplan Ost?

I'm not trying to play down the slavery aspect. I'm genuinely curious/ignorant.

I know written records from that far back can be difficult to find, so I was wondering if we had any idea how they handled things like loans and banking, since neither currency or banks were really a thing yet. Did the government, or whatever passed for it, collect taxes as just a portion of whatever a person produced, so they ended up with piles of random valuable things filling the treasury? How did the government move wealth from one side of the "nation" to the other, to pay for things like troop salaries or construction projects? How did people have "savings" if they were paid in salt or beer? Do we have any idea how prevalent debt was, how much the average citizen owed, if anything? If someone wanted to build a business like a brewery or something, how would they secure financing to cover startup costs?

I was just browsing around on ancient Roman Wikipedia pages, and I see a lot of historical people have a bust or statue as their portrait. It seems that in most cases they know who the bust represents. But how? Is there a name etched on the bottom or something?

I thought I heard once that it was tied to English archers. That when they were captured by the enemy their middle fingers were removed to make them unable to use a bow. Is this true?

I'm sorry to be posting cliché Hitler questions but I'm currently in an ever escalating debate about Hitler's personal feelings during World War 1 and we are struggling to come to a conclusion about some of these questions. If anyone knows answers to any of these questions you would be of great service to us. Thank you.

• How did World War 1 affect Hitler's mental health and personality?

• Was Hitler as motivated for battle as later claims in his life lead us to believe?

• What do we know about Hitler's military career to be truth or propaganda?

• Do we have first hand sources from Hitler on his views of his service in World War 1? If so, what do they detail?

• Last but not least, Did Hitler enjoy the War?

Please post sources supporting your argument.

I’ve recently been on a Spanish Civil War craze, fueled by a variety of sources and one notably got me interested in the women’s role in the whole thing. In Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, he mentions at the beginning that the women militia were ridiculed for drilling, when only half a year earlier they were treated equally. He notes that a wife of a fellow militiaman fought during the events of July 1936 but now seems relegated to the traditional housewife position. Now, I do know that women served and died not only in the militias but also in the International Brigades throughout the war. Were there any notable cases among those? Were there measures put in place in the government to try to forcefully relegate women to their traditional roles(akin to the government taking back control of the collectivised industry to reduce the militia’s and their political party’s power), or did it just sort of occur?

I know a lot about and love reading and watching medieval Europe siege battles because of all the tactics that were used by both sides. But I’m curious how Chinese siege battles were fought. Did they have things like siege towers, rams and stuff like that? The new Total War shows infantry using grappling hooks to climb up walls. Was that s common thing?

[deleted]

Deadly Nightshade is poisonous but was apparently used for a while by Venetian women as a cosmetic product to redden their skin and dilate their pupils, a look that was fashionable at the time, which is how it got the name Atropa Belladonna (bella donna meaning beautiful lady). In addition to its physical symptoms, the Deadly Nightshade's symptoms include hallucinations and delirium.

Here are my questions:

Could it have been used in the 1800s (when the novel is set) in small doses over an extended period of time to give the impression that someone is going mad?

And also, if someone stopped taking it, would they recover quickly?

Otherwise, what other substance known to man in the 1800s would have similar effects on someone's mental state?

​

I've been doing a lot of research online, but can't find very specific information about the process of going through this kind of poisoning. If anyone has some knowledge on poisonous plants and has some info for me, I'll be so thankful!

Wondering what applications there might be for it in the field.

For a country I'm most familiar with Canada or America, but if there's particular sources that make it easier elsewhere that's great to. For perception I'm not entirely sure what it would have been like previous anyway, but I was definitely thinking that between two world wars and increasing urbanisation, there'd be a lot more people both with deafness and dealing with deaf people. What about something like social discrimination? Job discrimination would be very interesting to read, but what about more along the lines of how people treat each other more socially?

Sorry if its still to broad. I'm not sure I know enough to know how to make it a more specific question

[deleted]

I sometimes hear these used interchangeably. Are they pretty much the same thing?

I recently read a book about the german perspective of D Day and in one of the accounts of the soldiers says something along the lines of “The invasion of germany took us by surprise” so that got me thinking about it.

Moreover, how was the movie received in South Africa itself, given its relatively even-handed portrayal of black characters, especially Xi, the Khoisan protagonist? Was there backlash from the conservative echelons of white South African society?

(And yes, I know there's a number of noble-savage elements with Xi's character and I'm aware of the not-great background of the film when it comes to the Khoisan people involved in it, but I do wonder how a) such a movie was made in South Africa at the time and b) how it managed to overcome South Africa's pariahood in the international community.)

EDIT: Altered my followup question to be closer to what I mean.

I have some questions about this topic. First of all, I heard that becoming a knight required years of training starting during the childhood as a page and then as a squire. Knights are usually imagined as mounted soldiers but knight was a nobiliary title as well. Did these two definitions always coincide or were there noble knights who didn't train to fight on horses or even fight at all? (or expected to be able to do it at least)

On the opposite, were there "heavy horsemen" who weren't formally knights?

Did all the nobles fight on horses or were there nobles fighting on foot or even using ranged weapons? Did this depend on the rank and on the wealth of the noble?

Were all the knights people who completed that special training or could other people be knighted on special occasions as well such as due to a good performance in battle or similar situations?

How often were new knights appointed? Was there one big event during which several new knights were appointed or was there a ceremony for each individual case or does it depend? Was this done by kings, dukes, counts, barons, by all lords independently of the rank or does it depend?

Do we have historical records about how many knights there were in a certain kingdom at any period during the Middle Ages approximately? (this is a quite broad question, I don't care about a specific place or a specific period)

Were all the male children of a noble couple initiated to the knight training of just some of them depending on the type of education the parents wanted for those children?

Are knight-errant's just fictional idealized figures or did something similar really exist?

Was it possible for a lowborn to ever become a knight, or even just a page/squire as a lowborn kid? If yes, how likely was it? Do we have any historical record of this?

Same thing for women, were there women who became knights? Same as above, do we have any historical record of this?

I know about Joan of Arc who was both a woman and a lowborn and she fought on battlefields but that seems like an extremely exceptional case, but I don't know much about her to be honest

I may have said wrong stuff so correct me in that case. I'm sorry if my use of the word knight is a bit misleading, in my language horseman and knight are often used as synonyms so I may use the word knight incorrectly sometimes. Thanks in advance

Im imagining that for several months, there would be 1 man for every 10 women. So my question is during that time, were women the majority gender in the population? If that was the case, was the general vibe of the time more centric? Would ads target women. Would movies and TV shows and magazines women centered? Was there more of a "girl power" vibe? Or was it business as usualm

I know businesses would have had signs and advertising up outside their premises, but would we see large spaces dedicated solely to advertising things other than nearby businesses? Were there businesspeople who made significant money off of advertising?

When I think about comparable examples in the US, there is nothing comparable. New Orleans was similarly French, and while it maintains a bit of that character, it is more just a quirk at this point in comparison to the Quebecois culture. And of course somewhere like St. Louis which was similar, that is practically just a distant memory relative.

Heck, even in Canada, at least my vague sense from being a tourist it would seem that Quebec City is much more strongly entrenched in that cultural heritage than Montreal, so how consistent is that maintenance within the province itself, place to place?