I know the monarch, the Queen, is the Supreme Governor of the Church, but how did these two bishoprics become the most important and not London?

[deleted]

Right now I'm in a college Western civ class, and I've seemed to notice a general trend: directly following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (well around the 600s through to the 900s time frame in Western history) there seemed to be a period of states that were marked by relatively huge borders, with what must have been similarly large populations in them. These were medieval kingdoms, with what must have been a huge amount of power, think like the Carolingian Empire, the Bulgarian Empire, the Empire of Greater Moravia, the Kingdom of the Visigoths, Aquitania, and I'm certain even more that I'm missing now. In some cases; the differemces between these countries and the ones that spawned them is not so dramatic, like the kingdom of the Franks compared to France itself or the kingdom of the Visigoths to Spain, but at least in places like Bulgaria, the differnce in power hat these medieval kingdoms held seems to be dramtically different, and this kingdom in particular was quite powerful, at least for its time and compared to its neighbors. Is there any reason for this, or is the appearance of such kingdoms purely coincidental.

Animals usually eat when they're hungry right? Humans must have done that up until a certain point. Anyone?

Reading the hugely popular novel, it struck me that Orwell had gotten a lot of inspiration from world war II but also the communist USSR. What threats, politically, historically, or economically were posed to the general British citizen at its time?

EDIT Title should say West African. Maps are hard. Also assorted typos.

One of the slavery apologist arguments I heard from a friend of mine is that "The Atlantic slave trade wasn't really breaking up families, because Africans back then didn't have any concept of marriage; whoever you were sleeping with at the time was your husband(s) or wife/wives".

I'm normally pretty good at refuting the usual apologist arguments but this is something I haven't been able to find reliable information on, even though it reeks of BS; even if they don't have an organized religion or one man/one woman lifetime commitments most cultures have developed a concept like marriage, even as simple as "ownership" of a woman/group of women. I understand if this is better asked on r/askanthropologists but I'm trying here first.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but as the title says, why is musical theater associated with gay men? In every musical I've seen that had a romantic plot or subplot, the romance was always straight, be it South Pacific or Phantom of the Opera. On top of that, a lot of musicals seem to have things in them designed to cater to straight men. While I haven't been able to see Chicago on stage, if it's anything like the movie I can't imagine a gay man would get much out of, say, When You're Good To Mama.

However, the connection is there, for whatever reason, and if it isn't the content of the musicals themselves, the only thing I can think of is some kind of historical event. Were there any famous gay musical actors who were out before being out was a normal thing or something?

The 'Notes on the Author' section of my copy of The Aeneid says that Virgil died from a heat-stroke while sailing from Greece to Rome. Was heat-stroke really that serious an issue, in ancient times?

Hi, just wondering because I didnt see anything on the Safavids or Mughals in the booklist specifically. I'm interested in reading some kind of comparative about the three big "gunpowder empires" of the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals, or any good book about these three either individually or together.

So my understanding of cavalry in Europe is that from the Medieval period to the modern period there was a transition from heavy warhorses to lighter cavalry due to technological advances. Now light cavalry had always existed, especially in the Roman Empire where they had dedicated horse breeding centres.

Were these modern period horses better from a physical perspective or simply more modernly equipped/trained? I would suppose it comes down to the definition of better, in the context of light cavalry I'd imagine the criteria are: greater endurance for given size, greater speed for given size, more intelligent/ more easily taught and less easily frightened.

Another way to phrase this would be, if two horses looked exactly the same and had the same size and shape except one was from late antiquity whilst the other was from the modern period, would there be a difference? Had selective breeding in the modern period produced a horse that performed better given the same physical characteristics, or did it simply produce a horse with more of those preferable characteristics that a horse in antiquity could potentially possess as well?

I understand that the point is that it's too early to tell, but I was wondering if there are any theories yet.

Edit: I don't know what's going on with the Journalism tag. It added itself, disappeared for a few hours and then came back again...

After the second World War germany was divided, destroyed and poor. Now ist the strongest power in the EU and one of the strongest in the world. My question is: What made the change? What helped germany to gain power again?

Slew 'o questions ahead: Was it taboo to view such movies, and if so, what were the consequences? Was there ideologically driven censorship? Were Soviet films ever widely broadcast on American TV? How does their distribution in the US compare to other NATO member countries? Was there a home video or rental market for these movies? Did leftists ever have private or public screenings of these films?

I've read (and watched) a lot of Anthony Sutton's work on US-USSR economic relations, he's generally viewed as a kook, but some of the stuff he talks about is well-established (e.g. Ford and the GAZ plant, Averill Harriman and the Georgian manganese). What is the consensus, was the US' role in the USSR's modernization decisive?

Before expansive trade routes and adequate transportation, how did land locked areas like mongolia, or tibet, or any place far from the ocean/salt seas get salt to make things like preserving meats a common thing?