During the medieval period, what was the makeup of theater 'professionals'? Or was there even such thing as a professional?

What sort of treatment and respect would the theatrical set expect? I've read in some periods, at least, that it was barely a step up from being a prostitute in terms of social standing, so was that applicable here?

Were there class divisions within the profession? i.e. the 'classy' troupes who would be allowed to perform for the elites, and lesser ones that would do performances for the hoi polloi?

How long did it last? If the vietcong mostly always suffered 3-4x more losses and I use the word mostly, how did they sustain their army, fight over the course of a long war? So Saigon was taken the moment the Allies left, how on earth could anyone say that's a victory? Good documentary to watch on the Sniper battles?

The Iron Curtain can be said to have split the European into two halves: east and west. But this split didn't exist before the end of WWII, so what were the early 1900's definitions for Eastern Europe? Or did it even exist as a concept? Kaliningrad is definitely Eastern European but it was a German city until WWII, for example.

Edit: Of course this split is now highly contentious and even considered offensive among Central Europeans and the Baltics but it is undeniable that planned economies were grouped together as Eastern until 1991.

Equity is branch of legal jurisprudence that allows a court to make decisions based on what is "right" or "just." Things like injunctions, stays, and similar legal devices are all apart of equity. As opposed to equity, law required courts to follow precedent and rigid procedures. In England there were separate courts for law and equity. In the US, the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave federal courts jurisdiction over law and equity. In 1822, rules were set out for federal courts that referred them to look at what English courts of chancery were doing if they were uncertain how to act.

In a time of such distrust between England and the US, following the War of 1812, why would the Supreme Court not create its own formulas for equity instead of referring courts to what England was doing?

I guess the simple answer is 'to spread the evil communist agenda'. But what did they tell their people to justify it morally? From their view was it about liberation of the Southerners from American oppression or did they have comrades and sympathisers down South they wanted to team up with like in Vietnam? Was there some covert stuff going on from the American side trying to provoke a war with the North?

You could say Hitler just invaded his neighbours cause he was an evil Nazi imperialist but obviously there was more to it as there was a reason the German people were willing to fight so hard in that War - a mixture of revenge, liberation of German land and citizens as well as Hitler's vision of lebenschraum and a pure aryan Europe. When you consider this about that situation, it must be reasonable to suggest that there is more depth to the situation in Korea as well.

Not looking for a political rant, looking to understand things from a different point of view.

Now obviously the factor of the insane costs associated with capital ships was a major factor in driving Britain, the US, and the rest to the table is not quite on the same scale for a tank or an aircraft. And air power and armored warfare were still in their developmental stages but were there any movements or ideas to extend limitations to them as well.

Mostly interested in conventional weapons here as opposed to the discussions and process leading to the inter war Geneva Protocol relating to gas and chemical warfare, etc.

I just finished reading 'The Last Battle' and a thought crossed my mind reading about some of the forced/slave labor at Schloss Itter. If Germany had won the war, would they have still used slave labor for most industry jobs, or would they have given those jobs to citizens or to the subjugated population?

I have heard that the Ottomans were less permissive of east-west trade than the Byzantines had been and thus asiatic goods were less available/more expensive to the bulk of Europe in a time when demand for these goods was rising. Was this increased demand for goods a motivating factor in Iberian funding of explorations under the likes of Columbus or Vasco De Gama?

When depicted in television and media kings are portrayed as having limitless unquestionable power. In practice how much did they actually have and what is a modern day equivalent? For example do modern president have less or more power than medieval kings? What about mayors?

I get that it could be boiled down to just "racism." But I am curious as to why this group is so hated. There are 8 national races there so why not one more?

It seems bizarre that in the Cold War context, the French government would be so intransigent over their colonies when everyone else in Europe was giving them up. How serious was de Gaulle's threat?

After World War 2, it is well known that many Nazi leaders managed to escape capture and settled in various countries in South America, Argentina in particular. Some like Mengele managed to live out their days in obscurity, others like Eichmann weren't so lucky. How did these countries become a safe haven for Nazi war criminals and in many cases knowingly harbor them? It seems like an odd destination with little social or cultural connection to their home.

I'm probably looking at this all wrong, but isn't an Axial Age similar to saying "dragon mythology exists across many cultures, so maybe there were dragons"? Why can't dragons just be an awesome idea?

The Wiki page on Axial Age isn't helping me out a whole lot, so any other sources would definitely be appreciated.

Edit: As much as I'd love to assume that my question is just too sicknasty for this subreddit, I don't think that's the case. That being said, I really am open to someone pointing out why this is an idiotic question. Do I just need to read more on Axial Age?

My understanding is that Hitler came into power by empowering German citizens, and blaming their issues on minorities like the Jewish people. However, he didn't make it clear that he would essentially commit genocide. Do we have an idea of how many Germans didn't support the killing, or German troops trying to leave the German military?

Hello all! I was talking to a friend about current events, and he made the claim that the percentage of black men in American prisons was much lower in the 1950-60's, and further, that black people were generally better off, at least in terms of wealth, than today. For context, he was using that as an argument that the current prison demographics are not the result of some sort of systemic racism in the justice system, but something else. I don't want to violate the 20-year rule, I just want to know if his claim is true, and if it is, what sort of things other than racism could have contributed to the prison demographics becoming what they were in the 1990's. If racism is a large contributor, I'm curious as to why the prison demographics weren't more unfavorable to blacks in the 50-60's.

In general how were insults / defamation addressed under Roman law?

Had this paper brought to my attention, and curious what more knowledgeable minds had to say on the subject.

Z. Liscow: Why fight secession? Evidence of economic motivations from the American Civil War

He eventually states that the economic issues of the time were a major driver of war support in the North, as supported by alterations in voting patterns.

Tl;Dr: How much of the support the Civil war in the North was driven by economic interests?

Hiya! I'm just curious about whether or not any biographies exist that cover the life of, 'The last great Viking' Harald Hardrada. I've tried searching on my own, but I'll admit that I'm not the best at looking for academic sources. Any help would be greatly appreciated!