To further elaborate on the question, I am wondering specifically if are there any reports of how staff and feasts were organized, how meals were planned, and how lavish a feast might be vs. an average meal for royalty and nobility? Did kitchens have to hire outside help for special occasions? If so, where did these temporary staff come from? What was kitchen technology like for the very wealthy in medieval Europe?

I heard a debate in which one participant said that Apartheid was born of the desire to exclude blacks from competing directly with whites, especially for mining work. This was a surprise to me; I don't know much about South African history, but I'd always thought of Apartheid as a general anti-black system enjoying widespread--or at least class-independent--white support. But I'd never given it terribly much thought, and the argument given during the debate struck me as plausible.

Examples: informal harrassment of black workers, the Pass Laws, and the Colour Bar Act all seem to benefit white workers as such, not necessarily whites in general.

• Did white support for Apartheid come from all economic classes, or did business owners (who may have stood to gain from increased labor competition) oppose Apartheid?

• And a follow-up: If white business owners did oppose Apartheid, how did Apartheid endure so long? Surely they must have funded anti-Apartheid candidates.

I've been reading The diary of a cavalry officer in the Peninsular War and Waterloo Campaign, 1809-1815, and it's been a fascinating look at the campaign. I only began to read in the hope of learning more about how a cavalry charge was performed, but it's entirely captured my attention now.

That said, it's only one side of the campaign, and now I'm wondering what the French experience was. Have there been any English translations of French personal accounts of the campaign?

As the title says, I'd like to know how murder trials played out in 19th century British courts. I'd also love to know of any good primary sources, or even fiction, that give an accurate idea of how they worked.

A few specific questions I'd like to know the answer to:

• Would a murder trial be a jury trial? If so, how were juries selected?

• Were these trials open to the public?

• What was the standard of proof needed to be found guilty? (Beyond a reasonable doubt? A preponderance of evidence? The judge just thought they seemed guilty?)

• Did poor people have to hire an attorney, or was one appointed for them? And were they called attorneys, lawyers, or solicitors?

• How quickly did sentencing tend to happen?

• Was there an appeal process?

• Did colonial courts operate differently than courts in England?

Plenty of time passed between e.g. Plato and when the physical manuscripts we have of his works, which made have been penned by e.g. a medieval monk.

I see plenty of ways our manuscripts might be way of, our even frauds.

Some examples:

• What if ancient authors hijacked the name of famous authors to improve sales
• Slips by the scribes
• What if book dealers liked to improve their books (say a trader goes to Carthage with Plato, and adjusts the goods to local tastes, and what if the new text beat the original?)
• What if scribes wanted to try fixing errors in the manuscripts they copied
• What if ancient libraries created incentives to fabricate new works?

What sort of evidence do we have that our current versions of ancient works are consistent with the originals?

In the show Spartacus, the citizens of Rome seemed to enjoy watching people cutting each other a lot.

They cheered when there was blood. The bloodier the match, the more they seemed to enjoy themselves.

1. Was this really the case? Do they really enjoy seeing gladiators kill each other?

2. Why was it so enjoyable? Were they sadists?

Roman Catholic Church gradually came to dominate the political sphere of Western Europe but Byzantine Emperors and the later Ottoman Sultans were able to maintain absolute supremacy of the state over the church. The Patriarchs of Constantinople were kept on a tight leash and frequently dismissed by them, something unthinkable for the Pope of Rome.

I'm thinking maybe because England was Protestant but I have no Idea.

I was listening to hardcore history today. Dan Carlin was talking about German artillery against the Belgians and how long it took to assemble them (such as having to lay concrete and let it dry). My question is why did they sit in the fort instead of going on the offensive during this set up by the Germans. Why let them assemble and set up the artillery when they could have cut them off by going at them in an offensive?

'Nuff said—what was Warsaw in January 1945 like? What were the conditions of the ghettos?

The show seems to suggest that the cabinet should be consulted for things like what the royal children should be called and whether members of the royal family can fly airplanes (I'm only on episode four, so there are probably more examples in the show).

This is interesting to me. Was it always like that or how did that kind of relationship develop overtime? Were some prime ministers more interested in directing the affairs of the royal family over others?

just curious. ive actually been to normandy before and was stunned to see how there were just cliffs. Ive also heard of d-day as the successful failure in how the allies prevailed but we pretty much just threw bodies at the beaches until we succeeded. Thanks,

One of my Polish coworkers has gotten me interested in the country. A friend loaned me Adam Zamoyski's "Poland: A History," which was interesting but very very short. I'm looking for some good books in English that are a bit more in-depth.

How was Cuba involved with the United States gaining possession of Guam and Puerto Rico? Also, how did the United States military exercise their power over Cuba, even though they are an independent country?

Say a general was spotted commanding his army from a hill a ways behind, what would the enemy general have thought of the idea of sending a force to capture and/or kill him? Would this have been seen as a legitimate tactical decision, or would it have been considered "dishonourable" or some such?

There's some scriptural evidence that all of the apostles, save Peter, were teenagers. Scripture also says that Matthew was a tax collector. Could teenagers really be tax collectors in 1st century Judea?

I know Anne Frank only got famous after the war (and her death) when her diary was published, but she stayed hidden for such a long time in comparatively luxurious conditions. Did anybody ever tell the Fuhrer about the Franks?

Yes I have heard of the Torah but would like to delve deeper.