How different was Shakespearean English from modern English when spoken aloud, and how different was it from the "day-to-day" language used by most people? Were there embellishments added, or was "forsooth" a common enough word that no-one would have batted an eyelid?

From what I understand, Nagy began his political career as a Soviet-style Communist, but after the death of Stalin he led the liberalizing faction within the Communist government before eventually supporting a new multi-party democracy immediately before and during the Revolution. What were his actual policies and goals in liberalizing Hungary prior to and during the Revolution?

EDIT: Also, could any area experts recommend a good book on the Hungarian Revolution? My grandfather was a rabbi in Budapest who survived the Holocaust only to be sentenced to death for supporting the Revolution (and only escaping through a series of near-miraculous events). I'm quite ashamed at how little I know about an event that shaped my family so profoundly.

I mean using harpoons and nets I suppose but does someone know how they did it???

Thanks

I was reading some things on Alexander Nevsky, and it seems that he had a pretty unusual political career regarding Novgorod: he was invited there in 1228 to lead a military campaign, kicked out soon afterwards (at least if the image of him being called upon while in exile is correct, which I don't know), then was brought back under the influence of his father in 1240, then was kicked out again then was brought back the next year to lead military campaigns, then was kicked out in 1252, then was brought back in 1258, then was kicked out again the next year. It is a bit confusing, particularly given that I cannot tell if it was a pure republican office (as seen by him being kicked out and summoned in turn) or one with monarchical elements (as seen by him being installed by his father and later installing his son).

Which leaves me a bit in the dark as to what the office was, and how it was chosen. I am also curious as to the relation with other Russian city states, given than Alexander was from Vladimir.

The Klan today appears hyper-nationalistic claiming their views and belief is to create a better America. Seeing that the country as a whole opposed the Nazi regime during WWII, did the original Klan also publicly oppose the Nazi regime, or did they find common ground with them?

Edit: After doing some snooping on the AskHistorians books page, I found this "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II", thanks.

I know it's not quite right to frame it as "German/Nazi" vs "Jew," but it was the most succinct way to get my question out there without much loss of clarity.

I see a lot of rhetoric in various threads about removing Civil War statues talking about how they were traitors to their country, etc, etc...., I know they were all pardoned just after the war but I'm curious what the general sentiment on the street was. Did the average American in the North see a former Confederate soldier as a traitor to their country?

Some sources said that scissors were used before nail cutters, but are there historical records depicting these kinds of situations (if any, because they would be very rare)?

I mean, all of continental western europe was against venice for the first two years before France switched side after england joined on the pope's side, surviving was a lot of work for a small merchant republic.

This is a claim that I've seen more than once, typically from very left-leaning political opinion sources. The claim is that certain countries in Africa and the Middle East were granted independence from their former colonizer states (Britain, France, etc), but the new nations' borders purposely included the territory of warring tribal or ethnic factions. Supposedly, this was done to "keep the new country down" in order to preserve colonial superiority and ease of re-intervention

Do any primary sources support this?

I was watching the John Oliver segment on North Korea and he said that we didn't know much about the camps there because the country has little contact with the outside world. Was this also the case where the only things we knew about the camps during WWII were from few eye witnesses who had escaped?

Since today is the 70th anniversary of the Partition of India which caused by some estimates 2 million deaths, I would like to know about the root causes of the Partition. Why did it happen?

I'm reading Bernard Bailyn's The Barbarous Years, and most requests for slaves read as if they are specifically for black men ('able-bodied', 'strong', 'workers'). When slavery starts being made into racial laws around the 1670's, there are specific rules set out for white women married to black slaves, making them property as well.

This made me wonder if black women were also with the first black slaves, or if something changed in the second half of the seventeenth century.

I'm really enjoying the book, but so far it kinda ignores women, and I was hoping this sub could give me some more information.

Did any soldiers in WW1 use the Christmas truce as a way to kill or capture other soldiers or capture plans supplys etc.

I suppose this is a bit philosophical, but I'm writing an essay that involves U.S. intervention/non-intervention in Libya and Syria respectively in recent years. It strikes me that the relative success/failure of those rebellions is incredibly contingent.

How are we to regard close-run events with profound outcomes that might have very easily turned out differently?

I'm talking about ships between, say, the 1400s and 1800s...

Also, did old-timey ships ever "burn down"? I imagine they were using candlelight to see belowdecks, at least.