I've just read a few Aristophanes plays: Wasps, the Poet and the Women and Frogs and I can't but wonder how these plays were performed. I always imagine Greek theater to have a kind of minimalist aesthetic but the stage directions seem to imply some pretty flashy set design and what I can only assume are some fairly neat contraptions. Do we have any info about this outside of the stage directions themselves..? Fyi I'm reading an old penguin classics translation not the original Greek.

Cold War fiction writers like Tom Clancy frequently portrayed the late Soviet leadership as utterly cynical, corrupt figures who knew that their system was a complete joke. Was this actually true?

More specifically, had the US not used (or even invented) the nuclear bomb at all, would another nation have followed suit anyways?

Was the Manhattan project a sort of "invention of the wheel" kind of phenomenon that rapidly spread across the world, or was it an isolated case? Can we assume if the project hadn't happened to begin with that no other similar project would have happened?

I realize this might belong more on r/askphysicists, but I'm just curious about the historical repercussions of the project and the twin bombs.

I remember my history teacher telling us a story about how Ho Chi Minh was ignored at the US Embassy when he wanted support in making Vietnam independent. He then walked across the street to the Soviet Embassy where they flew him to the Soviet Union and equipped him to start a revolution against the French in Vietnam. Is any of this remotely true?

I mean this in the sense of how Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge there was a genocide against intellectuals I wanted to know has the opposite ever happened?

This isn’t a means to hate anyone I just had this question in my head for a few months. This isn’t meant to hate just to learn

Like Caligula’s full name, Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. What does Germanicus mean? Did it have anything to do with the province of Germania? Was it a title?

I was reading about Hugo Black, who was the first of FDR's Supreme Court nominations. Specifically, it was mentioned that after his confirmation in 1937, Hugo resigned from the Senate and was sworn in 2 days later. He later said that he was sworn in ASAP because he feared the Senate/public learning of his past KKK membership would sink his nomination.

My question is, how unpopular was the Klan during this era? And if it was truly so unpopular that past membership could sink an Alabama Senator's nomination to the SC, why was it so unpopular? I've always been under the impression that most Americans in the 1930s were either "extremely racist" or "holds less extreme, still racist views". Did the klan ever have the majority of the public on their side, say in 1924, when their membership peaked? Was the klan unpopular in spite of the public having racist views, or was the public liberalizing and the klan's popularity suffered as a result?

So, Engles had a potted career working in his father's textile industry, especially in the Manchester office. We hear a lot about how his early experience there informed his theoretical work, especially The Condition of the Working Class in England.

But did he ever reform or changes to the business itself, reflecting his political philosophy? It seems he did eventually work his way up first to run the Manchester office, and later to full partner, so what did he do in the business with that control and power?

In my research I’ve found some interesting things like the rise of the Orthodox Church to its powerful and influential place. I’ve also found that Moscow was a relatively small city that was burned to the ground before the Mongols came. But I haven’t really been able to find much in the way of cultural impacts, and I was wondering if anyone more knowledgeable on the topic knew anything. Or if anyone is able to find some sources that I haven’t been able to find. Any help and discussion would be greatly appreciated.

I also have noticed that there isn’t a lot of direct influence, like adoption of religions or traditions since the mongols didn’t occupy Russia like they did China or Persia.

Also, how creditable is Victor Lieberman in the history academic community?

I've always wondered why did Timur name one of the pieces in Timur's chess as "the giraffe" since they are not very useful in war

Perhaps he never saw a giraffe and all he knew is that they were long horses from far away lands, and if they were like horses then it made sense to have them in his game along Elephants, horses and camels