I learned recently that Cleopatra was one of the few (if not the only) ancient Egyptian Pharaohs who bothered to learn to speak the ancient Egyptian language. That got me wondering: did the pharaohs ever give public speeches? Like a modern politician would?

[deleted]

What would the loss of the Suez canal have meant for Britain? Was oil production in NA and the Middle East significant compared to other parts of Allied/Axis territory?

I have an encyclopedia from 1936, published in Finland. It has entries with pictures of different negro types and their characteristics, adding that a well educated negro can be very intelligent too. Other peoples are described as well as their histories, for example the Chinese are said to be good businessmen but prone to oppressing others.

How did we end up with the present state, where the whole concept of race is largely abandoned? Did the change come from the West or everywhere at the same time? Were there any influential studies done?

Obviously racism is still a problem around the world, but there haven't been any encyclopedias like this in a long time.

CONTEXT: I have this observation that the Parliament of England actually can impose their will to the monarch. This was proven by how the monarch needs the approval of the Parliament to go to war and increases taxation. I understand that the relationship exists thusly because there was a precedent that the members of Parliament, the landowners, to successfully make the Monarch comply, ex: King John-Magna Carta, and King Henry III-De Monfort's Parliament. And this state of relationship is kept through generations which, in my analysis, supported the democratization of the United Kingdom such as appointment of commons' representatives, the appointment of the first lord of treasury to rely on the Commons' trust, the universal male suffrage, the universal women suffrage, and practically giving the position of the head of Government to a member of the House of Commons. Yes, the Monarch might refuse and resist, ex: Ferrers' case and James VII/I's parliament suspension, but when the Monarch has stepped too far, the Parliament could successfully make the Monarch cut off, like what happened to Charles I. The point is the change brought by the Parliament is inevitable to be implemented.

Question:

1. Why does this kind of relationship not exist in other countries? (French Estates General was weak to the French King and Spanish Cortes were weak to the Spanish King. I mean the elements were all there, the lands were managed by the land-owners, why then there was no resistance at all from these land-owners).

Btw, yes, I'm a new subscriber. I have read the rules, and yes I understand that I'm asking a broader-concept topic. Mainly because I like to talk about the underlining concepts in History.

This seems like a laughably small force to retake the entire peninsula, given the number of Austrogothic forces, and especially relative to the 100,000 troops the empire had sent to Africa just a half-century earlier. If regaining Italy was so important to Justinian, why did he send such a puny force to do it? Was that really all the empire could spare? Were there recruitment problems? Were the rest of Byzantine forces tied down defending other parts of the empire? Thanks in advance!

I have googled this a bit and I would like to find a list of like colors that were used by the Indians and also how they obtained these said colors.

I am specifically asking about how they established communication in the first place. Apparently Donitz, the new president after Hitler died, communicated with Eisenhower trough telegraph. But how? Was it using radio or were the telegraphs connected by cable. How did they know the radio frequency or how did they connect the cables.

What about Germans on other fronts. According to the Wikipedia page some Germans captains were secretly negotiating surrender and as soon as Hitler died they surrendered. How did they establish communications too? I was reading about a delegation being sent by Donitz at Luneburg Heath. They arrived by car, how did they signal they were coming in peace? What prevented random soldiers from shooting their car at first sight?

And finally, for random pockets of left over German soldiers with no real captain, did they surrender as portrayed in the movies, by waving a White flag and raising their hands?

And what's the story behind Engel's topless doodle of her?

If there were no witnesses, how would they ever find out who killed a person?

And if it was difficult to impossible, what did that mean for the general murder rate of the average Roman?

I ask mainly because it seems to me like such vast territories would require a flexible governance strategy. You can't for instance expect a senator from the north to travel to the south in Manila (or wherever the capital at the time would've been) to travel for 5-6 days at a time to the capital to govern could you? How autonomous were provinces? How were claims to territory enforced on more remote islands, if at all? How differing were the governments (Spanish, Americans, etc) in their ideas on how to govern the islands?

I've often heard (and perhaps this is my main misconception) that Hitler was a good orator and was able to sway people through speech. However, without fail, every piece of film I've seen of him looks outright cringey to my modern sensibilities. His body language is, by modern standards, quite simply stunted and rigid. His speech cadence is vastly (to me) less moving than for instance MLK's "I have a dream" speech, or even a good actor like Anthony Hopkins speaking of something completely inane.

So the question is: was he really that good an orator, or is it simply that he was among the first to exist in the era of large crowds and amplifiers? Or was his oratorical ability only second to the actual circumstances of the era (post WWI Weimar Republic, Great Depression etc) and it was more his message that appealed to populism etc. In short, was the form really part of the reason why he rose to power, or was it all about the content?

Or more broadly, why did Prussian interests shift?