This has likely been asked, so thanks for any direction otherwise.

He says "How can the people not be panic-stricken at the sight of two privileged bodies, and perhaps part of a third, seeming to be disposed in the guise of the Estates-General to determine its future and subject it to a fate as immutable as it would be unhappy?"

I've asked a few questions with varying degrees of success about what division there was among the common people of France, so if anyone has more info on that more general question, too, I'd love to hear it.

Why didn't the Germans just ask the Belgians nicely to walk through their land, like asking for military access in EU4?

I can never quite figure out any kind of pattern when it comes to the names of the various kings/rulers during the Middle Ages (Europe). I always understood it as a first name followed by a number (example: Phillip II of France). Makes sense. His name was Phillip and he was the second Phillip to be king. Perfect. He also went by the name Phillip Augustus. This was just an extra way to differentiate him. Beautiful. I guess where I start to become confused is when it comes to last names. Let's stick with the French kings for now... Hugh Capet? Sounds like a dude's full name (first and last name). He was a part of the same House as Phillip II. Does that mean Phillip's real name was Phillip Capet? I never would have imagined that the name of the House was actually a surname. Is it? That just really confused me. Does that mean that Richard I of England's full name is Richard Plantagenet? No way. Another example that ruins that theory is Charles Martel (part of the House Carolingian). So why is his last name Martel? None of the other members of his family go by that name. His son was called Pepin the Short... so is he Pepin Martel? Nope. It's not like last names are unbelievable, because a lot of people say they were being used back then. In Italy it seems like everyone had surnames around that time. Look at any of the Doges of Venice or Genoa (example: Enrico Dandolo from the Fourth Crusade). The Byzantine emperors of that time also had full names (example: Alexios I Komnenos). Is it just something that Southern Europe had before the rest of Europe or... what? Help me.

Before we had machines making everything for us, would there be huge farms of people with sewing machines making clothing? Were there "brands" or did you just walk into a general store and pick up a generic pair of pants (hoping they'd fit)? Or did everyone expect women to sew clothes for the family?

I assume all those fancy suits and dresses were done by tailors, but I'm curious about the day-to-day wear of common people. Where would they get those clothes? It's not like there were fashion shows dictating the hot new styles...

I'm a huge fan of the Total War series and have spent more hours than I'd like to admit conquering the virtual world. As I was playing Medieval II earlier today, I thought about the fact that the game organises armies into units of spearmen, axemen, archers etc. How common was this in real life? Ie. would a Medieval king or general have a certain number of men with spears acting as one unit, another group of men with axes acting as a unit of axemen etc.? Or would it be more common to have groups of soldiers armed with various melee weapons forming a rough mob of soldiers?

I think it has to be population across all boroughs. No way ancient Rome is more densely populated than Manhattan today. I read the statement on one of the LinkNYC billboards.

From what I know, meat and its by-products wete the heaviest rationed food items, but was rationing as necessary as they made it seem during the war? And did things improve as the war went on?

I've often seen the tribes of barbarians the Romans fought be anywhere from a few hundred people in a single town of wooden and straw huts, to about a dozen towns, each containing over a few thousand people, with more permanent city structures. Considering that the population density would be lower than a Roman province, how many people, including women and children, would be part of a tribe? For reference, I'm asking about larger and more well known tribes such as the Arverni, Angles, Cherusci, the Burgundians, etc.

On the flip side, when did cities start having to deal with UHIE?

Virginia was THE powerhouse from the mid-1700s to at least the Civil War. Now, New York, California, Texas and a few other states have eclipsed and surpassed it as the more important political and economic hotbeds in the union. Is the reason for Virginia's slip from power purely economical? How much of a role did its secession in the civil war play?

I've been studying a lot about WW2, and it seems that from the Japanese persepective, after the US imposed trade sanctions war became their only option.

Was this Roosevelts intention? Did he WANT to enter the war against Japan and Germany, and just want a Cassus Belli?

If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbour but had gone after the Dutch East Indies, would US public opinion have gone in favour of fighting the Japanese?

mny thks for any info

Simon Sebag Montefiore says in his history of Jeruusalem that he "killed his own tutors, judges, cooks, poets and his cousins and cut off the hands of female slaves, often himself playing the butcher". It seems akin to a religion venerating Caligula or Vlad the Impaler. How did and do the Druze explain it?

Im just thinking as well as the personal family stories i'll ask about , it would be cool to also add to our understanding of the past by asking her about events which are poorly recorded ,incase she could help historians shed some more light on them.

edit:I should mention im referring to world war 2 in this post however she's been kicking about since 1928 so she's been through it all and lived in the shankill her whole life.

Dear Historians of Reddit,

See title.

I like details and statistics, and I don't care about personalities or stories. Mostly though, I am interested in accuracy and quality.

Thank you for reading.