When you read about rich women of previous centuries, it seems like most of their time was taken up paying visits to each other, eating finger sandwiches, and drinking inordinate amounts of tea.

But before indoor plumbing, what would they do with all that tea? Did private homes have powder rooms? Did they traipse out to an outhouse? Were there screens in the corner of the parlor, Versailles-style? Did the lady of the house ring a bell and order a pisspot for Lady so-and-so, Jeeves? Or did the ladies of yesteryear simply have amazing bladder control?

In the latest Call of Duty game, Call of Duty WWII, in the opening D-Day level of the game there are quite a few PPSH-41s in the hands of German soldiers. I am aware that Germany used a lot of captured Soviet weapons, including the PPSh, but I was always under the assumption that they were used on the Eastern front. I know that this is a video game and obviously absolutely no way to base historical knowledge off of, but it got me curious. Was it common for Americans or Brits to run into Soviet rifles or artillery pieces in France?

Title.

I'd imagine that if the Allies were more aggressive in:

a) Asserting that they defeated the Central Powers and that defeat didn't just happen to them from behind

b) Showing that Germany was a military dictatorship toward the end and the administration was itself the cause of the German Revolution

and

c) supporting the Weimar Republic, helping them develop a functioning democracy, and destroy the Freikorps

then World War 2 would not have happened. Why didn't the Allies do this? Why weren't they more supportive of Germany (as well as the other Central Powers) in their effort to create a democracy?

The Ptolemaic and Roman periods of Egyptian history are a fascinating period, both for the country itself and for the wealth of sources they provide, but it's not one I'm as well-read in as I'd like.

My go-to book for the period is "Life in Egypt under Roman Rule," by Naphtali Lewis, which is a great but somewhat old intro.

One phrase in the book has always stood out to me, though: in the chapter on class divisions, Lewis writes:

The repressive provisions of the Privy Purse, amounting to a veritable ancient apartheid, are totally in accord with inveterate Roman attitudes

To illustrate, he is talking about regulations like these:

• 39. If a Roman man or woman is joined in marriage with an Urban Greek or an Egyptian, their children follow the inferior status
• 42. Those who style themselves improperly are punished with confiscation of a fourth [of their estate], and those who knowingly concur therein are also punished with confiscation of a fourth.
• 49. Freedmen of Alexandrians may not marry Egyptian women

So my question goes: Is this comparison justified? Is it outdated? Are these class distinctions really comparable to skin-colour based racial distinctions in the Carribean or Indian castes, as Lewis does?

Is this even globally true?

I am currently playing the new Assassin's Creed and without giving away spoilers, of the numerous insights into the period this got me most curious. In the game, upon reaching the city of Faiyum and the Oasis, the side quests in the area focus on tension between Greeks and Egyptians. An example of an Egyptian character telling you that Greeks were taxed less and Egyptians were taxed more by the ruling Greeks resulting in the Egyptian's inability to buy land or maintain land that was already owned. There are also examples in the game of Egyptians desecrating Greek temples. Lastly, there were instances in the game of acknowledgement and reference to skin color and there being derogatory impressions regarding it. So is this just artistic license taking more modern social and class issues and putting them in the game or was there severe tension between the ruling Greeks and the Egyptians, enough so that they hated each other?

[deleted]

When I watched WW2 documentaries they always say that he was an excellent general, but never really go into detail about why that is compared to other famous generals like Patton and Rommel, what did Zhukov do that made him so effective?

As in records or stuff like that

Can be broader or country/region specific but I’m trying to get a better grasp on the Middle East (context to events, unrest, etc). Thanks!

So I’m reading a book about the battle of Berlin (Berlin, by Anthony Beevor) and I read that when the Red Army was reaching the Oder river (100 km or so from Berlin) the propaganda was claiming the war was taking place around Warsaw. Did people believe this? Was Nazi propaganda this strong?

Sorry if bad English.