Rudolf Hess died at the age of 93, so many would assume that he died of natural causes. But actually he killed himself by hanging using an extension cord. Now I am wondering why he killed himself, and that's why I am asking here to see if any of you would know.

edit 1: sorry I made a typo in my title.

In most media the 40’s are depicted as being much closer in emotions to the Civil War, and I’m wondering if that extended to American tankers.

Sherman is depicted in the South as a baby-killing, Attila the Hun type figure hellbent on destruction. Did any tankers take an issue with the name of their tank?

I understand the economic incentives for adopting widespread slavery in ancient time periods, such as how they were employed by the Roman Empire or the Athenians. Cheap and plentiful labor (often from prisoners of war, or civilians of conquered enemies) to build a stronger economy than your geopolitical rivals in a world where the strong conquer the weak.

What I don't understand is why slavery became less important for the success of feudal societies in Europe during the medieval age, and why serfdom became preferable.

What were the reasons that slavery (employment of slaves and the slave trade) eventually became less widespread in Europe during the medieval periods and could be replaced by serfdom?

• What were the economic reasons? Why was cheap labor less necessary in a feudal economy than before, and why was serfdom chosen as the ideal economic model?
• Were there any changes in religious and moral views towards slavery as well?
• Which was the more significant reason - economic or religious/moral trends?

Also, after the late middle ages, slavery was prominent in colonies but not in Europe. Why was that?

I know that the Romans used auxiliaries and mercenaries from foreign cultures as they continued to expand their territories, but I always wondered if people of color (non-caucasian) were ever hired into the regular legions. I recently began to wonder this because in popular media, Roman legionaries were always portrayed as solely European caucasians. Just to be clear, I'm not a racist nor am I trying to invoke some kind of racial debate about Ancient Romans, I'm genuinely curious about this as I've never actually thought about it before.

Edit: Are the comments getting deleted? I tried replying to some only to find that all of them are gone :S

Many people joke about today's leadersonly sit behind desk and never fight on the battlefield. They compared them with the leaders from medieval era and older who fight with soldiers in the battlefield. But I know those things are only based on Hollywood movies who glorify the leaders from back then, so what they said might be highly inaccurate.

But, I'm still curious. Were actually kings and leaders who go to the battlefield and fight with the solders? If so, how common was it?

It doesn't have to be the kings. It could be the region leaders (I don't know what they were called), the army generals, the navy marshalls, etc. Basically the top of the chain.

Reading and watching documents from as close as 1960s, I see frequent references to WASP or Anglos. Yet very rarely in the modern world. What happened to it?

I asked in another sub and was pointed this way.

I am interested in learning more about the theater culture in the Tudor era, anything on its origins and place in society.

I imagine not many had insurance at the time

I heard that a lot of criticisms of Empress Wu Zetian of the Zhou was because she was a woman and that her reign was pretty similar or even better than that of other Tang Emperors.

Why are Queens Seondeok and Jindeok written so positively by the Confucian Kim Bushik in the Samguk Sagi though? It seems in-spite of their genders, Korean Confucian scholars generally saw their reigns as positive and the queens as being rulers of merit. Even Queen Jinseong has her own Confucian defenders in the form of Choe Chiwon.

What was so different about these queens, Korea, or Korean Confucianism for these queens to be celebrated as opposed to being vilified, like Empress Wu?

I have a hard time imagining medieval Parisians allowing anyone off the street enter Notre Dame, but a Catholic guest list also seems a bit strange to me. Was Notre Dame like a modern church with regular service? And how does this compare to similar churches of the era (Sistine Chapel, St. Peter’s Basilica, Hagia Sophia, etc.).

I was going to include civilization, but that's a whole nother can of worms that can get messy really fast. Plus those Aztecs did understand how to build cities atleast. But even then they were still way behind compared to Europe. And they're a different beast compared to the even less developed ones up north who were still roaming around with teepees.

But why were the Indians so far behind with just sharp sticks and axes when Europeans already had guns, ships, cannons, massive cities, walls, literature, stonework, metallurgy, organized military, trade contracts, etc by the time the two made contact? I mean, the very fact that the Europeans were able to reach the new world by ship was itself an indication of the difference between the two groups.

I assume the tribes understood the concept of trading, and it shouldn't be too hard for someone to learn from their more advanced neighbors down south. Was the lack of written texts that prevented them from advancing?

I'm aware they were active in the industry, but I've heard it claimed they were forced into it by medieval kings as, essentially, a way to get someone else to do the "dirty work" for the christian majority. How voluntary was their association with that industry?

So I know that a lot of people talk about how Germans like the White Rose and the July 20, 1944 heroically stood up against Hitler and the Nazi Party. But I have never heard of any stories of any Japanese citizenry or military forming an organized resistance to oppose Imperial Japan and its policies.

Was there any form of organized Japanese resistance that opposed Imperial Japan and its policies, especially during WWII?

I suspect the movie changed this because an awful lot more people in the US have heard of Yamamoto than Nagumo, and the quote keeps its most important emphasis- that Layton should be able to tell Nimitz what the Japanese Navy was thinking about and planning. But it makes me wonder how much flag officers of the USN knew about their opposite numbers, and how they thought about them.

My understanding of pre-19th century Chinese history is extremely limited (downright nonexistent) but here is how I've always seen it.

A great force would come around and unify a fragmented China and establish a ruling dynasty. These dynasties all ruled as highly centralized absolute monarchies claiming some form of divine mandate. They made use of uber-efficient bureaucracies, which were maintained by systems of highly competitive state-run schools that churned out armies of very educated mid-level administrators. These administrators were charged with enacting strict laws that were universal across provinces, which themselves rarely exercised any real regional autonomy. Dynasties would however degrade in terms of corruption and competence, eventually inviting either external invasions, widespread rebellion, or both. This would lead to periods of fragmentation until the cycle repeats.

But what I've always wondered is, did anyone in the great list of either long or short-lived Chinese states or dynasties ever experiment or differ in terms of running their domain? When I look across the sea to Japan there are clear and distinct differences in how the land was ruled and governed across its history. I know I am probably way off the mark, I just want to know how wrong I am.

If someone was to travel from berenice or charax to Lutecia or Deva, how would they do it, and how long would it take?

What the title says. As far as I am aware, Pikes are cheaper to make, have a larger reach, and are more resistant to cavalry. Why on earth did they focus on their swords and not pikes?

Career wise and Socially?

I did a fair bit of research, and, if the Dark Ages (or whatever you call it, Middle Ages or Medieval, whatever) was roughly from the 5th to 15th AD centuries, and Greek Mythology stopped being worshipped when…? Everything I found said it was roughly one of these three centuries (All AD/CE) that Greek Mythology stopped being openly or unopenly worshipped:

• the 4th century, (when it was outlawed)
• the 9th, (When the Maniots [last people to openly worship Greek Deities] began to convert to Christianity)
• or the 11th. (When the Maniots finally converted to Christianity completely)

Vague much? Let me just say I’m not certain about what I put in parentheses in the bulletin above, but I think that’s why people were saying those centuries were when Greek Mythology stopped being worshipped.

What I can’t figure out is whether King’s were allowed to publicly worship the Greek gods with animal sacrifices, temples and whatnot in the Middle Ages. Or whether the Church or Royal Family would have killed them for such.

Anytime in the Dark Ages, just to be clear. Early, late or in between, as long as it's Medieval.

So does anybody have a good answer? With ACTUAL SOURCES, preferably?

I mean, horses are pretty out there when it comes to awesomeness, but surviving a volley of arrows... How did it work?

Is their anything that has been passed down through word of mouth/storytelling that we have no physical representations of?