More specifically, I'm wondering about the depiction of fierce rivalry and consuming focus on winning the sultan's attention in the Turkish drama Magnificent Century. Are there primary sources that give a real insight into how these women felt about their position and their fellow concubines?

(Due to Empresses in the Palace, I also have an interest in similar information regarding Qing dynasty China.)

Dan Carlin once said that drugs and alcohol are a very overlooked part of history so I was thinking if Vlad the Impaler, one of the most brutal men in history, was possibly addicted to anything.

[deleted]

Was public pressure (caused by Yellow Journalism) a major factor into the war being declared?

I was curious, in the Middle Ages in terms of warfare,armies and more. I have a lot of questions, so hope a few people can help!

First off, starting a war. Would Army A send a message saying "We're fighting"to Army B, or simply charge into their lands in a blitz attack to catch their enemy off guard? What were some reasons for war, aside from gold, succession or land(or were those the only ones)?

What percentage of the population would be culled for the armies? Were older veterans ever called in for their experience? Or did they only ever expect and choose young men to fight? Were numbers the main thing that the lords wanted(even if the men were old or young, as numbers were the most important thing for victory)or was training and armour just as important?

Were the population given helmets or even light armour?(Full plate being heavy, things like chainmail or something being lighter)? How about weapons, like footmen provided with spears and swords? Or were they expected to grab up or make their own? What kind of training were they provided with? Were they taught battle maneuvers if they were just commoners, like a shield wall or anything? Or was Army B just telling them "Heres a stick. Stab that fully armoured knight!" Were the commoners expected to come in and train for a few days with someone from their lords castle, or were they trained in the years before, were they just tossed into combat unprepared except for knowing hack and slash?

How many common people would be involved depending on the lands? How many knights? Did the common people or knights ever say "I don't like this cause for your war with the other kingdom Lord A" or "King B, this is a bad reason to fight!" Or "You're evil!" or "I don't want to go!" Would this be treason?

Did the invading army of A ever engage in looting, plundering, murder or rape of commoners from B or vice versa? Was there a reason for it, or was it just cruelty because they had the lord or kings backing and "to the victors go the spoils"? Did the ruling person just turn a blind eye to it because these were their fighters? Or did they punish those who abused their power?

Were battles just about crashing against each other until one side was all(or mostly)dead? Or was it a big tangle of fighting people? Did archers ever shoot into the mass of people(example: "We have reserves"from "Braveheart".) Or did cavalry fight first, then footmen and archers joined in, etc;? How did a leader make commands to all his different men across his army?

Would soldiers ever attempt to capture commanders, knights or people in a position of power from the other side of the battle? Or was it easier to kill them to make Army B lose heart and run away? If common people/footmen surrendered, would the other side take them prisoner? Or execute them because they couldn't handle feeding them?

If one of Army A's lords died and his troops ran away from the battle, would they be considered outlaws or traitors and executed? Or would they join up with another of Army A's lords and fight on his side?

Were mercenaries ever used to fight in armies? Or were they considered untrustworthy or ill trained?

Bonus question!: Were knights only ever made by a king? Who were people who could knight them? Would people ever be knighted even if they hadn't completed being a squire or been a knight in the first place(like for saving their lord, etc;)Was it only lords or a king who could raise them to power?

Thanks in advance!

After watching President Obama present VP Biden with the medal today, I got to wondering if any other VPs enjoyed both influence and warm personal relations with their president?

I can think of some who had influence but not much personal warmth (Cheney/Bush), and others who were close personally but didn't have great influence (Bush/Reagan), but did anyone have the two as Biden does?

Bonus question: who were the most influential VPs?

Thanks to anyone who answers!

[deleted]

Were there any Roman countercultures? I know about the circus factions, but outside of that, was there anything as far out as the 60's American countercultures?

For example America and Canada have very different accents to those of England where as Australia sounds very similar

[deleted]

For instance, i have arachnophobia (fear of spiders). Would they have this? Or would they be used to traveling through spider webs, having spiders in their homes, perhaps even eating spiders? What about water? Some people fear water they can not see the bottom of, or just drowning. But would these people be used to much more dangerous things and not care about a little water?

My question boils down to this: Have people become cowards?

I know of the Sacred Band of Thebes and I'm curious how it was in other armies, if it was institutionalized at all.

I had always assumed that it became state controlled, but the book I am reading refers to Prussia as a political entity up to 1891 at least. Sorry if this has an obvious answer or has been asked before.

After a few google searches, I haven't been able to locate anything that points to him actually saying this. Most of the links that appear seem to be conspiracy-esque sites.

The quote in question:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

I've just started listening to The History of Rome, a podcast by Mike Duncan. The podcast is incredibly informative, but I learn better through reading than listening, and Roman names especially can be easy to forget. So, I am looking for some good books on Rome that closely mirror the content of the podcast. Any suggestions are welcome!

We know a lot about the draft and the public's reaction to it and how the troops felt about it during Vietnam, but the draft in WWII seems to get swept under the rug. There doesn't really seem to be much in the way of information on how the public felt about it or what effects it had on troops who were drafted.