Just a question that came to mind - I've begun to get the feeling, from my reading, tv watching, etc. that some few Roman slaves in certain cases grew not only complacent but somehow enjoyed their position.

If so, would one attempt to 'spread the glories of Rome' to the rest of the world by contributing to its military?

Was the expectation that they'll surrender? If the fear in invading Japan was that they'd fiercely defend it why was the presumption that two bombs would end it? Were they bluffing that was had more bombs and that we'll just bomb everything?

I searched a bit for this and didn't really see it clearly answered or asked.

Came across these ideas recently, was wondering if anyone could tell me anything more.

When I researched the war crimes of the Wehrmacht, I discovered a pattern that most of the crimes were only committed against the people I mentioned above. It seems like the average ethnic Russian/Ukrainian etc was treated at least decently. This view seems backed by the fact Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators against the communists. The Germans Accounts of people in eastern Europe who lived under both German and Soviet occupation (places like Poland, Romania) thought that the Germans were generally "nice boys" while the Soviets were mean drunk "hordes" who raped and looted all the time. It seems like the Germans didn't "run amok" raping and pillaging like the Soviets did (is this true also?).

I dont knowwhere else to post this question but I one wanted to learn about the Shinobi and the samurai where wouldI start?

I really jsut want to become familiar with that part of history.

Please help or direct me to somebody who can

I know it was a common thing in WW1 to have people from the same town serve together. I would imagine, and correct me if I'm wrong please, but wouldn't towns lose many people all at once like that? Would that not cause a kind of loss of popularity with the war and support of it? If it did, did they change it during ww2 so towns wouldn't be as devastated by one battle?

I was reading one of King's books after watching a documentary on the civil rights movement and a lot of the white people state that kings non-violent yet confrontational tactics that were the primary cause of the violence erupting in their cities. I don't understand what they means by that since they were the ones creating the violence. Were some of King's protests non-violent, but step over boundaries?

Thanks

I'm curious about several aspects of this and similar meetings around this era. How would they compare with a contemporary meeting of national leaders? How long would it take to arrange ? What would security be like, both there and traveling to and from? Would each king establish a camp or have rooms in a castle or abbey? Size of entourage? Would the general public/peasantry be aware that the meeting was taking place?

I'm simply having a hard time understanding why intellectuals are seemingly held in contempt when dissecting American politics over the past 50 or 60 years. Politicians seem to disregard the "intellectual elite" when debating social and economic issues. Or am I wrong in thinking this?

I assume their titles as Kings of Bohemia and Hungary would theoretically be higher, but it seems like the crown was very centered around Vienna and Austria (as evidenced by the Austrian title being the one retained post-HRE).

Is there any example of what title they used in-between Holy Roman Emperorships (I.e. after the death of the last emperor, but before election as King of the Romans)?

I'm also interested in what would happen if they actually lost Emperorship long-term, in terms of peerage rules at the time and similar historic precedent.

So I know that the Samurai towards the end of their time no longer really fought in duels and instead became bureaucrats but when exactly did that happen?

In the aftermath of the World Wars, many Central Powers/Axis warships were captured as War Prizes, perhaps most notably the German/Austro-Hungarian Battleships in World War 1, and the Italian/Japanese Battleships in World War 2. All of these ships were scrapped or sunk in tests after the wars, but there is very little information I can find on what was done before they were scrapped, such as how they were taken home and what modifications if any were made to bring them into service with a foreign navy. Did any at all have long service careers in their new navies?

Note: This post has nothing to do with current events, rather it's asking if their has been a female dictator in history.

Mehriban Aliyeva is widely considered to be in line to succeed her husband as President of Azerbaijan, who is a dictator. If this were to happen, would she be the worlds first female dictator, excluding monarchs? I know that females have had considerable influence over dictators in the past (ex: Ashraf Pahlavi), and strong democratic leaders like Indira Gandhi were dictator-like, but if she became the next president, would she technically be the first female dictator?

So I know that in italian langobard is used to refer to the Germans that conquered most of italy.

Are the people in medieval history called Lombards the descendants of these Langobards or are they a native Latin people who adopted the name because the region they lived in was now called Lombardia?

Actually this is a line from a film by Woody Allen that I watched some time ago and that got me wondering regardless of it being just for gags. So this is a serious question.

As a carpenter, how much would Jesus charge at that time and place to build a simple wood chair? Would he charge it in cash or would he accept something else for payment? Would he be assigned to a guild (or any kind of institution) that would impose specific prices, materials and such back on those days? Was he very sought as a carpenter? Is there any record on that?

I was rereading the Declaration of Independence for my philosophy Junior seminar and came across a passage that I don't remember seeing before in the list of grievances:

"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:"

More questions: What is the context behind this statement? Which province are they referring to? How was the treatment of the American colonies vs other colonies. Was it harsher or less strict?

Churchill reportedly made a Speech to Cabinet saying that we shouldn't give in, but was it ever realisitic that the UK would sue for peace with Nazi Germany, and if so how close was it to happening?

I ask as had it happened WW2 would have been completely different.