I'm writing a graphic novel that takes place in late 15th century Italy. It's fantasy but I want to learn as much as I can about real world history to inform my work. I want to know about how non-white people were treated during this time. Where there any cultural groups that had been there for a long time? If they recently immigrated, where did they come from, how and why? What were the stigmas and how were these people generally treated? Did they have less 'rights', and were interracial relationships allowed? Did governments at the time recognize or communicate with foreign leaders in Africa, the Arabic peninsula or the Ottoman Empire? I read somewhere else that in the past crusaders sometimes forcefully brought foreign people back with them.

I would love any links to articles or names of documentaries on the topic you may have.

Pope Pius VI reigned as Pope from 1775 to 1799 meaning that the entire American Revolution occurred in his term of Papacy. When I googled this very same question, all I could find was him condemning the French Revolution, not the American one. Can anyone who studies the history of the Papal position or someone who studies the American Revolution and has in depth knowledge of how the world viewed tell me what Pope Pius VI thought of it?

So, I’m doing a school work about Poland, and I was reading about the battle of Grunwald. I read that one of Poland’s tactics was to delay the battle, so the enemy army would get tired. It got me thinking, we’re battles scheduled?

How would his dress (asking specifically about men) have differed from that of someone lower or higher up on the social scale? How would it have differed from what people were wearing in England or France around that same time? Were there any significant regional variations in costume between different parts of British North America in the middle of the 18th century? I am mostly wondering about the 1750s and 1760s.

I'm asking here because it's difficult to find an answer for a layman from a trustworthy source.

As an aside, this is prompted by an acquaintance calling the Civil War a war of northern aggression. His reasoning being that the South had the right to secede, and the North unjustly attacked them due to their secession. Is there truth to this claim?

It is my understanding that JFK was not one to resist the urges of infidelity, but was he abusive (verbally and/or physically to his wife), and did they really frequent drug use?

In short if I'm right the Germans bombed the city of Rotterdam to scare the Dutch into capitulation, why did the US decide to destroy two cities instead of one?

Was it his improvements with U.S-China Relations? Establishing the Department of Energy? Or something else?

I was watching the Black Mirror episode with the MASS implanted soldiers versus the Roaches, and the one guy went in about how something like 80% of soldiers who fought didn’t fire their weapons, or deliberately missed their targets because its hard to train people to kill each other.

I was just wondering if this is actually known to be true to some degree, or if it was just fiction for the show.

Edit: yes I meant since. Whoops

I'm mostly asking because of Crusader Kings 2, to be honest, but I'm curious how many claims were fabricated back then. Who would create these? The nobility themselves, or their staff? What was their actual reason for war/what were they covering up? And how did we learn, ultimately, that the claims/reasons were fabricated?

Say you were any engineer before you were drafted into the Army? Would they take that into account when deciding what your job would be during the war, or was it just as likely that you would be placed as a GI? Or if you had a strong desire to be an AA gunner in the Navy and maybe some skill set that would tend to make that a good position for you, would that be taken into account, or would it just be the luck of the draw whether you were given that job or the job of being a cook?

Also, for jobs that required special skill sets (engineers, pilots, etc), did the military take draftees with any background and train them, or were those positions only filled by men who enlisted and happened to have the required skills. My grandfather was a B-17 pilot who enlisted before he got drafted. He said the reason he enlisted was because he knew he wanted to be a pilot, and if he got drafted, he would have probably ended up doing something he didn't want to be doing. But if he had waited to be drafted, was there any chance he would have been placed as a pilot (since he obviously had the skill and desire to do so), or would he have been given a random position?

I was researching my family, some of who were in Ravensbruck, and I came across the full extent of these experiments. In reading about the various horrific Nazi human experiments, from those with twins, freezing prisoners to death, infecting with malaria, forcing Roma to drink seawater, burning people, exposing people to high pressures such that they died, vivisections, etc., did they actually achieve anything? Did the cruelty and inhumanity that they committed in these experiments actually produce any usable research? Or did they commit all these atrocities just for their own sake?

What i mean is equipment wise, most Muslim soldiers would probably have lighter equipments than the Crusader's, how would they best their more heavily armoured Crusades in a fight?

I was watching a WWII documentary and it was showing images of occupied and bombed out French cities. When this happened, where did the citizens of these cities live? Were there areas in France and Germany that didn't have much fighting so refugee camps could be set up? Or did they maybe stay in the cities and hope the didn't fall victim to a stray bullet or collapsing, structurally unstable building?