Examples include Ko-Ko being engaged to his ward Yum-Yum at the start of The Mikado and the Lord Chancellor almost marrying his ward Phyllis in Iolanthe. In neither case does there seem to be any objection to their getting married other than that the man is not the romantic lead. An inversion happens in The Pirates of Penzance with Frederic nearly getting engaged to his nurse Ruth, yet the age difference between them is here accepted as comical, and in any case Ruth would not have had guardian status.

Further to the question, if the onion was native in many places, was this the same species of onion, or did it vary by region in the world?

I am mostly interested in Philipos II and Alexandros III’s eras. I have read a lot about both of them and beyond (until the Roman conquests). Food, not so much. I recall reading somewhere that blood sausages were common. Also, apparently, the soldiers were well-fed on meat and could outmatch just about anyone in strength. I don’t know how accurate that stuff is.

As a person who emphasizes physical fitness and good nutrition in everyday life, I have a hard time believing that Alexander’s soldiers could have gone as far as they did living on onions, bread, and cheese.

I am aware of what ancient sources say, but I am looking for information that is more in-depth.

:)

European cities were repeatedly hit by plagues and disease, while Tenochtitlán first saw these epidemics with the arrival of the Spanish. How come there weren't major epidemic outbreaks of disease before that in Tenochtitlán?

I mean late-era USSR, 1989-1991 inclusive. Besides Plokhii (2014) and Remnick (1993). Already looked through the rec. modern Soviet history list.

I’ve been wondering this for a while, without being able to get a good answer. After Austria-Hungary was dissolved during WWI, why did Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia become states instead of each of their smaller nation states, similar to what they are today? If states like Austria and Hungary resulted, as well as surrounding states regaining territory, why were many more ethnic groups still grouped together in larger states? Additionally, why was it like this again after WWII until the end of the Cold War, and then broken up to resemble what it is today? I appreciate the help!

And if yes, what did they do during the war?

Maroon societies have become a fascination to me. Obviously by the time of the Jamaican and Haitian slave/maroon revolts, these groups had become a serious thorn in the side of the colonial powers. My question is how prolific were these groups in the century prior (1600-1700)?

Were these communities only large in Jamaica and Hispaniola, or did all Caribbean colonies deal with serious rogue slave factions? Did the mother government choose not to put them down with military force out of apathy/cost, or did they fear the strength of these communities?

Battlefield V is one of my favorite games at the moment and I love examining how what's featured in the game compares to the actual events of WWII. Given the current talk surrounding Medic weapons right now and some people suggesting they have pistol carbines or shotguns, it made me wonder what weapons medics in WWII would have brought with them, if any.

So how realistic is it for anti-explosives to carry SLR's and AR's (Assault), medics SMG's (Medic, obviously), and the people in charge of ammo carrying LMG's and shotguns (Support)? I don't have many questions about Recon since snipers having bolt actions is a no brainer, although I'd inquire about the use of SLR's for that class as well.

Feel free to extend this discussion to equipment as well, like the explosives for Assault, the rifle grenades for Medic, the anti-tank mines and Bouncing Betties for Support, etc.

In less than 2 years, the US marched through Mexico and captured Mexico City. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave the US the southwest states, but during the period of Manifest Destiny, why did the United States settle for the Mexican Cession after a decisive American victory?

I know that the Roman Empire encompassed a lot of different ethnic groups. Were people under Roman rule treated differently based on ethnicity or skin color, and how did that affect social class/structure? Did ideas about race stay the same throughout Roman history, or did they change? Were they the same in Italy as in the provinces? Also, was this different than the way minorities were treated in other classical cultures (like Greece)?

Reading about the crusades, it seems that not only the kings (e.g. Richard Lionheart, Saint Louis) but also their whole entourage - the upper echelon of the state - went to the holy land. How was the state administered in their absence? Were there any precautions against coups, large and small (on the vassal level)?

Stalin reputedly said "I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy". What did he mean by this?

I’m looking for what type of economic or social issues caused the republican, whigs, and other parties to be created. I can’t really find anything else besides slavery, which was obviously being debated between the north and the south. Any help would be appreciated.

I’m currently reading through “Armies of Heaven” by Jay Rubenstein and he’s now mentioned a few times where ladders would break during a siege when too many soldiers attempted to climb them at the same time. He describes how they fell far to the ground in full armor. No doubt this would probably have led to many men breaking various bones or even to death. This is obviously just one of thousands of ways men were injured in such battles but the ladder example particularly made me wonder what would happen to a soldier who broke their legs in such an event. The book doesn’t talk about logistics much besides mentioning when they were low on food or material to construct siege engines so my question is, what would become of these soldiers with them being so far from home and with the crusader army often being short on resources like at the siege of Antioch? Did they have the capacity and ability to treat such injuries or would they send conveys of the injured to the closest controlled city or was it like a put them out of their misery kind of thing for severe injuries? Thanks in advance.

More specifically, are internment camps like for Japanese-American citizens uniquely American, or are there any historical records of any other Allied nation rounding up citizens with cultural ties to a belligerent nation?

For example, what does the historical record say of how France, (Belgium, the U.K., etc.) treated French citizens with German roots living inside France between the outbreak of the war (september 1939) and the invasion of France?

I'm about to finish my highschool. And at the moment, my biggest interest in life is History. For the past years i'v been in love with everything that's dated back from the two world wars to the Macedonian empire. It fascinates me, and I was wondering what options i have with that interest in life. What's the best and what would get the most income. I know life isn't about money but it's still important. Thanks in advance