Were Medieval Guilds the descendants of Roman institutions? Did they exist outside of the Roman Empire and spread to Western Europe during the Migration Era? Or did artisans and merchants create them from whole cloth during the Medieval era itself?

After the USSR fell, my understanding is that there was some (probably not much) talk about Russia joining NATO.

Was this ever really seriously discussed? And if so, why wasn't it pursued?

Knowing that tons of celebrities go crazy and have mental breakdowns from fame, have any presidents had any mental breakdowns? If not publicly known, do you think that there have been presidents who've had mental breakdowns but it got covered so the public wouldn't know? I know that there have been presidents with mental illnesses, but I'm talking more along the lines of just losing it like a Lindsay Lohan or Charlie Sheen.

So, I recently acquired a copy of Ulysses S. Grant's personal memoirs. I am excited to read them, but I just had a question. I've had a number of people also recommend Ron Chernow's biography 'Grant', and I was just wondering: if I read the memoirs written by the dude in question, do yall still think its worth reading the Chernow's biography afterwards? Will I get another more/valuable out of the biography that I wouldn't get out of the memoirs?

Hi. I always wondered why Argentina was "the favorite" among emigrants looking for a place to move to in Ibero-America.

I'm gonna try to turn my questions into some smaller questions to make it more clear and easy to reply to:

*Why did so many Europeans who were looking for a better life choose the farthest country in América among all the other options?

*What was that big advantage that Argentina offered and not the other countries?

*Did the other countries have a more restrictive immigration policy?

*Did they give any incentive like free land to persuade the people to move to their country? (If yes, was Argentina the only country that did this?)

*Was Argentina so empty (Talking about population) compared to the rest of the countries?

​

According to the data I saw, only Brasil is close on numbers, and even then there is a big difference. The rest of the countries are just way behind Argentina, even if they are closer to Europe.

​

Thank you!

I've recently watched the Netflix documentary "WW2 in Color: Road to Victory". In the first episode they discuss the evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk, and state that

the RAF downs "up to" 240 aircraft, losing a 106 planes of their own.

Firstly, is this true? And secondly, if it was, given the disparity between allied aircraft losses and German aircraft losses how did this not impact German stratagey later on when fighting the Battle of Britain? Did the Germans just ignore such losses?

I'd guess I'd like an answer to the question, to what effect did the RAF influence the Battle of France, and how did it effect the future course of World War 2?

So I've been watching Upstart Crow on Amazon Prime, which is a rigorously researched. Historically accurate documentary very silly sitcom about William Shakespeare in the vein of Blackadder. A running gag in the show is Shakespeare basing his plays off of recently-published books purchased by another character, Kate, who is the daughter of Shakespeare's London landlady.

Throughout the series, this happens maybe for or five times (at least) across a time period of several years (the chronobiology is a bit vague).

My question is this: when did print literature become sufficiently widespread and cheap that middle-class (more or less) commoners would be able to afford to buy at least one new book every year or so?

Or, in other words, how rapidly did the 15th century invention of the printing press enable move books within the reach of the common citizens?

I'm aware that pamphlets and magazines were fairly common and popular for a (very) long period of time (and helped popularize serial novels) but for the purposes of this thread I would like to focus specifically on bound books of more than 100 pages (approximately).

And this probably does not need to be said, but given that this answer is likely to vary from culture to culture, remember to specify where. And to be clear, despite the British premise, this question is directed at any and every culture y'all may be familiar with!

I understand that the guests are vetted and invited to be used as essentially props in the speech but why did this start?

I just don't understand why people who follows a certain religion are considered as a separate race. When did this concept start and why is it used today still?

What happened to those who live in enemy soil? Can you answer same question for German and Italians who lives in enemy country too?

At what point could someone have foreseen the invasion of Ukraine? Could it have been planned from the beginning of the denuclearization of Ukraine? Back in 1993 University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer predicted aggression from Russia towards Ukraine if the denuclearization would happen.

Am I crazy, or is this way too farfetched that someone planned the coming isolation of Russia with all of these sanctions and the possible fall of the Russian Oligarchy?

Would a small church in even own a bible in 1439 before the invention of the printing press? How expensive was a bible? Is it cheaper to build a church or buy a bible? How does this answer change in 200 AD?

I did a search and didn't see any answers to questions about conjunctivitis specifically. Before the introduction of anti-biotics how did populations prevent it from spreading rampantly and causing long term damage across large populations? Especially in a city setting where sanitation might not be a priority.

I'd also be interested in answers about any pre-antibiotic time to the same question!

“Are you angry when someone’s armpits stink or when their breath is bad? What would be the point? Having such a mouth and such armpits, there’s going to be a smell emanating. You say, they must have sense, can’t they tell how they are offending others? Well, you have sense too, congratulations! So, use your natural reason to awaken theirs, show them, call it out. If the person will listen, you will have cured them without useless anger. No drama nor unseemly show required.”

MARCUS AURELIUS, MEDITATIONS, 5.28

I'm aware that Marcus was a Stoic, and the reframing of his annoyance above was a way of coming to terms with things he couldn't control and refocusing on what he could — either telling people they stank so they could address it, or shutting up and accepting that sometimes armpits just stink.

I'm friends with a few people who are all about natural living. That means no deodorant, and perhaps questionable bathing habits. They often have a notably unpleasant reek. I've heard the au naturel crowd claim that people have always had BO, and it's only modern people who are perturbed by it and try to reign it in through bathing and deodorants, etc.

But is that true? How common was dislike of BO? Did people just get used to it, or was it always annoying?

In the premodern era, did people bath to address BO? Did they have any other remedies? Is dislike of BO really a mostly modern thing, with outliers like the rich Marcus Aurelius representing a snobbish view?

Just what did Marcus expect his subjects to do once informed of their stinkiness? Just take a bath? Something else?