Hey there,

I'm not 100% sure how to phrase this question clearly, but hopefully the gist of it comes through.

I was just thinking about the usage of substantive footnotes in fiction (ala Pratchett) and realised that their adoption depended on the ability to clearly print rather wee letters consistently and clearly.

I imagine the same applies to things like concise indexing in Encyclopedias, or cheap and cheerful availability of woodcuts for early illustrated pamphlets.

How enthusiastically were these new technologies adapted by publishers and by the broader public?

Was there generally a maturation stage where techniques became economically feasible and then spread out into professional circles?

When techniques gained traction, were there fads for 'types' of works? Say, cheaper manufacturing paper and bindings for penny dreadfuls?

I realise it's a very broad question, but I don't have any background in publishing or manufacturing in general, so I'm unsure what to narrow in on!

Cheers :)

Is there are a book or extensive article on the Red Army from 1945 to 1991 in English (or German)? Usually, the standard source(s) are the two US army Field Manuals (FM-100-1 and FM-100-2, if I remember correctly).

For instance, I've heard that he wrote an 8 volume history of Carthage prior to becoming emperor. I know none of his works are extant, but I was wondering how much about them we can piece together from quotations in other works, etc.

I know that there were two different forms of it.

The first one is senators sitting parallel to each other like the seats of a football stadium and there was this corridor between them, so it was like the British House of Commons.

The other form was just like an amphitheatre, with the senators sitting through a half circle.

Does anybody know which form was present during which eras? The only hint I have is that Caesar was murdered in the Theatre of Pompey which had the amphitheatre formation, but many media sources depict the first corridor formation so I need your help in determining during which time in its history it had the corridor formation and in which time the half circle one

I'm reading Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans, and its definitely fascinating, but his chapter that talks about the call for Jihad and the French/British muslim response ("A Global Call to Arms") doesn't really answer the question why they didn't respond. I'm by no means well versed in Islamic/Middle-Eastern history, but I have read a bit on the Algerian War and so I'm familiar with all the discontent/anger the Algerians had for the French colonial system, and Rogan describes a similar discontent the Egyptians had for the British and the legal muddle of whether they were to be considered as British subjects or Ottoman/enemy subjects. Yet neither (as far as I know, haven't finished the book) really launched any major rebellion? Most surprising of all to me was the overwhelming support of the Muslim princes in India in declaring loyalty to the British Crown. Again I'm not familiar with the colonial history here, but with 65 million muslims it seems shocking that there would be such unanimous support for the colonial system and war effort at all, without adding the sultan's call for Jihad on top of it.

If in Algeria and Egypt at least, muslim colonial subjects were so unhappy with the imperial system, why was there seemingly no attempt to join the Ottomans?

Also I am vaguely aware that Jihad is not exactly the same as a call to a Crusade, it just means 'struggle' and can be a purely internal/individual affair, but suffice it to say I'm not even too clear on what a call to Jihad from an Ottoman sultan would mean to Arabic and Indian/'Pakistani'/'Bangladeshi' people (would muslims in the British colony of India have thought of themselves as Indian?) in 1914

Why did attorneys in the U.S. develop to have the same role as both the British counterpart?

For example Robert E Lee who fought in the Spanish-American war. Was he still able to pull a US military pension after the US civil war for his previous 32 years of service to the US military? Since he resigned before the war he would have had what is the equivalent to an honorable discharge correct? I know federal pensions were rewarded much later for CSA veterans but there is still debate around that legally making CSA soldiers official veterans. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Edit: Mexican-American war...oops

at this time a private bath required slaves to fill it with water and log fire to heat it

I have asked this question before, but I believe it is allowed to repost when you do not get any replies, so I will try a second time: They wear them on every picture and in every game I've seen for the period. I have come to wonder whether they had a practical use, because it seemed weird and expensive to issue them for every soldier if it had no use. Did it help protect them? Signify their rank? Or did it otherwise come in handy? If it was for pure display, then why was that so important that you would spent so many resources on it?

I've been reading from multiple sources about how European armies dominated the field with their early use of blunderbusses in the 1400s or so. Just curious if there was an earlier use, or if a general recognized their potential in an unusual manner or something.

After Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire what were the immediate effects on existing pagan beliefs? Did the decline of traditional beliefs happen at different rates in Rome, Greece, and Egypt and if so where did pagan beliefs survive the longest? Furthermore how late did the last remnants of these ancient religions survive?

Edit: just to be clear, I am mainly talking about the "true" Huns after they ransacked the Eastern Roman Empire

When fighting Hannibal or Phyrrus, Rome and her allies absorbed huge casualties yet always seemed to have fresh armies for the next season. How did Italy sustain huge losses when major defeats destroyed other states? Was the population of Italy just higher than other regions?

I get the sense that historical materialistic approaches to the French Revolution have fallen out of favor, and it seems to me like historical materialism is, even if unintentionally, very Eurocentric, almost as if Marx didn't accurately analyze pre-industrial societies (like, for instance, the oft-mentioned factoid here that feudalism didn't exist as it was commonly perceived as existing, and that it didn't exist the way Marx envisioned, marking a major flaw in historical materialism). Is this the case?

I remember reading this in college for a class concerning Pax Romana. Does anybody have any sources to back this up?

Following the end of WW2 what did the European Jews do about Jewish people that were collaborators with the Nazi Germans and assisted with their oppression? What did they do to them? We're there any form of punishment to them, or did the Jews allow them to freely assimilate among the rest of the Jewish Holocaust victims? I want to know how the European Jews dealt with their own betrayers.

I have noticed in recent reading (much of which comes from recommendations I found here so thank you for that) that some historians use the present tense when writing about matters in the past. Phrasing like "Martin Luther returns to Wittenberg in 1522" for example. Since this is clearly in the past and not all historians do so - why is it used?

I was doing some reading of Crimean Khanate, which was the sole true ally of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth during this troubled decades of post 1650s (at the same time an enemy during the early Khmelnytsky Uprising) , but I was kinda taken back by the Swedish invasion. By the way isn't John II Casimir part of the Vasa family? My knowledge is in the Ottoman and Crimean politics, but I want to learn more about Poland.