What made it so dangerous for them to rap?

Rappers like Big L, Tupac, Bugz, Biggie Smalls, Soulja Slim, Jam Master Jay were all murdered.

A lot of rappers back then also sang about the dangers of rapping. An example is Eminem's "Like Toy Soldiers" where he sings about how they used to be able to sing without worrying about being killed:

"It used to be a time where you could just say a rhyme, and wouldn't have to worry about one of your people dying."

And another example from his diss track "Bully" where he sings about all the killed rappers:

"Now what bothers me the most, about hip hop is we so close, to picking up where we left off with Big and Pac

We just lost Jam Master J, Big L got blasted away, plus we lost Bugs, Slang Ton, and Freaky Ta"

What changed the rap genre to make it so violent and why doesn't it seem to be as violent as it was anymore?

The title Emperor was exclusive to the Holy Roman Emperor and the Eastern Roman Emperor. Did that mean that all other, Catholic European monarchs were supposed to be under the HRE in some sort of hierarchy?

Someone here once claimed that the HRE > France > England in a chain of Western European states, but I can't find that post, nor can I find any sources indicating this.

Are there any explicit declarations of one European kingdom being subordinate to another?

Wikipedia tells me that opium pipes were invented in the 16th century but finding info on its uses after this point outside of China and the Opium Wars is a lot harder

I'm currently on a Victorian era fiction binge, and it seems like every book has women fainting left and right, perfectly healthy people dying from getting rained on, being overwhelmed to death from emotion, and other seemingly ridiculous maladies.

Did people during this time period really have such weak constitutions? If so, was it just from harsh their living conditions? Or, since most novels tend to portray upper class characters, was their poor health related to all of the basically inbreeding going on between well-off English families? Or is it all just a literary trope from the time?

[deleted]

During the American Revolution we know that they had muskets, rifles, and other technology of those sorts, but was it the same in the Middle East? During my school life I don’t think we have talked about this, except maybe for the Barbary states, but I need a more in depth answer. Thanks!

I'm watching a documentary wherein USAAF navigator Sam Halpert describes the expectations of bomber crewmen that had to bail out during bombing raids over Germany. He lists, with some amusement, that the kit contained a couple of condoms and a fairly useless German phrasebook as well as some needle and thread with buttons (seriously?) and some fishing hooks. He also says the kit contained some German money (fair enough), powdered coffee, and fishing hooks with line. The phrasebook included such essential phrases as "where is the cinema".

So why was the escape kit so useless? Did the USAAF and RAF really think their bomber crews were going to Casanova their way out of contested Europe?

I read online that some people think Rome never fell, it simply transformed into the Byzantine. Is that correct? How are the byzantines and the romans similar?

Last night a friend and I were having a debate and splitting hairs over this topic. His stance was that because of Napoleon's victory at Borodino, he could be said to have captured the city, but I said that the slow retreat of the Russian forces and the evacuation of the city points to more of a tactical abandonment. I realize the distinction is extremely fine and essentially meaningless, but where is the official historical consensus on this? Did the Russians give it their all to keep the city and Napoleon captured it, or did they allow him to take the city with limited resistance to preserve their army? Thanks!

Resubmitted because of a typo, sorry about that.

Would they be punished? If so, how?

For a specific example, let's take slaves in ancient Rome, or perhaps the U.S.A.

The Migration Period of Germanic tribes that precipitated the fall of the Roman Empire was so I've heard partly driven by the Huns forcing them out of their home territories, but I don't know of anything like that happening in 9th-10th century Scandinavia.

Like, would a monk just be handed a book and told "go copy this, please"? Did they copy it onto loose-leaf paper and bind it later (and, if so, how did they organise/keep track of the loose leaves?) or did they copy into an already bound, but blank, book (and, if so, how did they know how many pages they would need)?

A quick Google tells me plenty about what and why they copied, but very little about how.

I read that from multiple sources (including a textbook). How reliable is this? I'm also talking about the general population, not the well-off who willingly chose to consume alcohol.

I've seen libertarians saying that what we learn about the Great Depression in school is all fake. That it was caused by intervencionism from Hoover and so on (Im not explaining the whole theory, I hope some of you know it). What historians think about that?

In a couple of scenes in HBOs Rome, the upper class are depicted as having sex while thier servants are present. Is that accurate and if so, why? Were witnesses needed? Or did they have that much contempt for their underlings?

So I've been totally obsessed with the new Assassin's Creed game, and it's got me really interested in learning about BCE Egypt. Can anyone recommend a good start point for ancient/ancient-ish Egyptian history?

[deleted]

I've recently watched "The War", the 7 part PBS documentary by Ken Burns on the Second World War.

Among it's interviewees, is Ray Leopold. A former army medic who featured in several episodes and whom I found to be a tad more melodramatic than most other people in the documentary. To me, it seemed he had somewhat mentally rewritten his personal experiences in a more epic/literary way; which somehow made them less convincing/real to me.

Anyway, I thought most of what he said was at least plausible. One thing though, keeps me thinking:

--

• I (Leopold) said, "Yes, what's on your mind?"
• He said, "Where are you from?"
• I said "I'm from the United States."
• "Where in the United States?"
• "The Northeast." I said.
• "Where in the Northeast?"
• I said "I'm from Connecticut."
• "Where in Connecticut?" He was persisting.
• I said "I'm from Waterbury, Connecticut."
• "Ah, yes," he said, "Waterbury, at the junction of the Naugatuck and Mad Rivers."
• Now, you have to know a bit about the area. The Naugatuck is a fairly substantial river. But the Mad River is a little stream that you can jump across without any trouble. Anyone who knew this...I was puzzled.
• I said "How did you possibly know that?"
• He said, "I was training for the administration."
• "The administration of what?"
• He said, "The administration of the Territories."
• My blood went cold. I couldn't possibly imagine that Hitler, in his wildest imagination, not only had Europe in his grasp, but also figured that he would control America.

--

I mean, first of all the odds of him meeting this particular German POW seem staggering to begin with.

But as far as I know, the Germans barely had workable plans for the administration of their conquered Eastern territories. It seems weird that they would train people to administer territories of the USA when they had no invasion plan or overall strategy in fighting the United States.

So my question is, how plausible is this story?