Adolf Hitler himself was a vegetarian, and much of his inner circle was composed of people who abhorred animal experimentation and other practices. How did the Nazis reconcile such views with their willingness to disregard the rights and safety of other humans?

We were learning about The American Revolution and I was curious: What were some of the most prevalent occupations during this time? I'm sure farmers, indentured servants, and slaves were among the most common. Which common occupation had the most influence? (Slaveowning Merchants? Printers? etc.) Thanks.

I've always wondered how these ancient civilizations were able to completely level cities when it comes to warfare. Nowadays we have bombers, artillery etc. which are able to destroy cities but what measures were taken in ancient times to ensure "total" destruction?

Thanks in advance :)

Or was it a mixture of both? Thanks in advance.

I know there have been many questions based upon the fall of Rome, however what they oft fail to mention or include is the fall of the Western Roman Empire as a whole.

Are there any books that deal with those topics and compares them? I know too little about the Indian caste system but I'm writing a paper about it and thought it would be a good idea to compare it to white supremacism. I don't know, maybe I'm saying something stupid. What are your thoughts?

I thought this was a late-medieval European theory, but I heard one of my Saudi Arabian students talk about it recently, and so I wondered where the theory originated (obviously Muslims also have the story of Noah and his sons, so could come up with the idea as easily as Europeans), and how it spread (for example, was this an indigineous Arab theory, or one spread there by say, the British Empire).

With Hefner's passing today, this seemed an appropriate question to ask! While today Playboy is seen, if anything, as kind of stodgy I'd venture, given the proliferation of pornography that is far beyond the airbrushed centerfolds which made it famous (and really, hasn't that been the case for a few decades now? Compare to Penthouse or Hustler, which forced Playboy to change things up to a degree), my vague impression is that it was pretty progressive in its own way back when it debuted, pushing a fairly shocking openness to sexuality, and accompanying it with progressive minded reporting and literature (Some people really do read it for the articles!!!). But was "Playboy" itself leading the wave of the '50s-'60s, or more just riding it and benefiting in the popular mindset due to its enduring place in the pop-cultural landscape?

I was venting to my sister about a difficult day I'd had at the library because like 90% of the men mentioned in a particular bishop's register were called John and it was hard for me to keep track of them. She asked why I didn't just refer to them by surname - but that's not always possible with medieval surnames. Many people didn't even claim to have a surname (e.g. 'John, of the village of Hampstead ...). As far as forming one went, I guess you could technically have

• father's name (John Wayne)
• patronym (John Watson)
• occupation (John Smith)
• place of birth, especially for monastics.

What I want to know is: when did surnames become 'fixed' and hereditary? When would John Smith's son Thomas remain Thomas Smith and not call himself Thomas Baker or Thomas Butcher?

There's really no background as to why I need an answer to this question, but my curiosity got the best of me. Even if anyone doesn't know the answer I would appreciate it if I could be pointed towards where to find my answer. Much thanks !

I'm an avid fan of history and have been reading a few books on Byzantium from authors such as Johnathan Harris, Michael Angold, and a few others with some light reading on Villehardouin and Robert of Clari. To me it seems the Byzantine Empire fell due to it being a shadow of its former self - Possessing only Asia Minor and the Balkans at this time, they no longer had Greek fire which might have been used to stop the crusader ships through barring entry to the Golden Horn. Nor were they able to pay off the Crusaders and Venetians, a feat which they might have been able to accomplish had they still posessed Syria and Egypt, or yet even still had the battle of Manzikert not been lost.

Obviously this is rather simplistic, but; why did the Byzantine empire fall in 1204? and can we argue that it was inevitable that it would collapse sooner or later? But then this brings us back to the resurgence of Byzantine rule in 1261... Thanks for taking the time to read.

I'm asking because I was reading a book about Siberian folk religion written by a Hungarian academic in the 1950s and it lays on the ideology pretty thick, talking approvingly about the "need" for Soviet authorities to proactively crush said folk religions rather than merely letting them "die out", which is somewhat at odds with trends in Western academia supporting the rights of first nations. I wondered if the inclusion of this kind of orthodox communist ideology was a prerequisite for getting your work published in communist countries before 1989.

I was also interested in subtler manifestations of this phenomenon, hoping that someone might comment with a rough guide to interpreting the writings of communist academics.

Were Arab christians facing the same fate as Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks in Anatolia? if not, what was the difference?

A more dramatic retelling would be awesome, and hopefully a non-biased book.

Edit: A YouTube video, documentary or a MOOC will be cool too.

I'm wondering about the formation of the English parliament, which I'm led to believe occurred in the year 1265. More specifically:

• What political, social, and/or economic factors influenced the formation of parliament? And how is the English political context different from that of comparable monarchic states?
• What was the general political position of the common classes? Nobility? Monarchy?
• What were the powers of early parliament and how did they interact with, or compete with, aristocratic and monarchic authority?
• I'm led to believe that English parliament has more to do with modern democratic institutions (such as, well, the modern parliamentary institutions of modern nation states) than examples such as republican Rome or Athens. If so, are there particular reasons our modern cultural narrative is modelled on the Greco-Roman example? If not, how did English parliament change and adapt to become the parliamentary systems we have in today's democratic nation states?

As you can probably tell, there are two main thematic questions: What happened? and How was our modern cultural narrative shaped?

Thanks for any insight.