Saw this on /r/shittyaskscience and thought this was a legit inquiry.

He was well-known to be quite nationalistic. I've been wanting to read his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples for quite some time, is it an accurate, well-written text, or is it too out of date at this point?

Or is the emperor basically a glorified job allocation manager who's main role is deciding who gets to handle doing the actual job? As an extended question, who exactly besides the emperor is doing the job of running the empire? In modern times we tend to focus on state level elections and their candidates, but for large countries often times the provincial level elections are just as if not more important. Would the same have applied in that a Chinese peasant would perhaps care more about who the chief minister or who his local official/judge/administrator was, rather than what the emperor was doing? How quickly would an emperor respond to crises outside of an invasion, for example environmental disasters? Would he take tours of the empire periodically and basically be like, hey im the emperor everything's fine China still awesome, but don't be lazy, get back to work building that wall, make China great again, that kind of stuff? Or did he mainly just stay in his palace and get his administrators to do everything? What kind of propaganda or government messages would the emperor send to his subjects? How did the empire function if the emperor was sick or on vacation? Did everything just grind to a halt, like the government is out, nobody can make official decisions, or did the government basically carry on? What happens if an official makes a decision that the emperor wasn't happy with, does he get executed? Was there ever a case like this where the emperor simply didn't want to run the thing and for a long period of time the empire was essentially the project of some minister or consortium of top officials? Also what kind of careers or education would an emperor have had prior to becoming emperor?

By this I mean, do we have any writings or evidence to suggest that some people in his time viewed Satan as the protagonist, or at least a tragic hero.

Red Cliffs was traditionally thought of as this gigantic battle with tricks and fire ship attack and setting the stage for the formation of the Three Kingdoms , and is arguably the highest climax in Luo Guanzhong's novel.

After watching the 2010 drama, I was reading the section on Red Cliffs in the Records of the Three Kingdoms, I'm kind of having doubts. I agree the outcome of the campaign set the stage for the Three Kingdoms. But before Wulin, the Sun-Liu alliance had already beaten Cao Cao's navy straight up, forcing Cao Cao to retreat to and anchor at Wulin. And then according to the records due to disease in his army Cao Cao burnt own his ships and went back north and/or Zhou Yu/Huang Gai sent fire ships against Cao Cao's fleet at anchor and set fire to the fleet.

Whatever happened at Wulin though, it appears to me Sun-Liu Alliance already has already beaten Cao Cao, who saw he was at a disadvantage and wasn't keen on staying. Doesn't that make the battle of Wulin just the Sun-Liu Alliance giving Cao Cao one last kick on his way out?

Are there historians who think raised this possibility?

I watched an old episode of Twilight Zone where every character pronounced it "row'-bit" instead of "ro-bot'" and it sounded hilarious. When did this shift take place?

I'm watching the Tudors and Henry seems really upset with Anne. He says she "looks like a horse", has "unpleasant airs about her" and from what I could see, did not "perform" well in bed. She seemed to be very off put by his leg wound and his attitude. But how much of this is true? The painting I've seen of Anne wasn't of an ugly woman. Thanks!

A lot of history books mention how the Allies were adamant about the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, but none I have read mention anything about peace talks or ceasefires throughout the war.

Additionally, if there were talks of surrender, what were the conditions either side was asking for?

Nearly all high school have at least heard about marijuana and most have probably tried it. Was wondering if was the same in the 50s.

I don't think I saw this in the FAQ. Why did the coup collapse? Why did Red Army tanks disobey orders to storm Yeltsin's headquarters?

• Was there not enough public support for the coup leaders and their goals?

• Was the coup poorly organized?

• What role did glasnost and perestroika play? How about economic prosperity?

• Was it because the Russian Federation now had enough power to rival the Soviet Union? How could Gorbachev tolerate such a decentralization of power?

• Were allegiances split between Yanayev and Gorbachev among the CPSU and Red Army?

Did he believe that due to a line of reasoning such as "There is a necessary distribution of talents and accumulation of weath, and its easy to vote to take it away from those with wealth"

Or were there famous examples of failed greek democractic city-states?

Or something else?

[deleted]

I recall a friend mentioning something about early Christians and baby eating, but the joke might have been in comparison to hippies and drugs during the 60s. Was there anything like this to lend credence to Baby Eating and Early Christianity?

[deleted]

I'm in a research group for Female Spies/Couriers/Assassin's pre Civil War and I was assigned the time between 1826-1847. And considering assassin's and spies were secretive I can't seem to find much on many women whose careers fell in the allotted timeframe. I do have a list of women though I am not completely sure if this is good enough.

Nancy Morgan Hart (1735 - 1830) Marie Dorion (1786 - 1850) Sarah Grimke (1792 - 1873) Lucretia Coffin Mott (1793 - 1880) Sojourner Truth (1797 - 1883) Angelina Grimke Weld (1805 - 1879) Abigail Kelley Foster (1811 - 1887) Rose O’Neal Greenhow (1813 - 1864) Lucy Stone (1818 - 1855) Elizabeth Van Lew (1818 - 1900)

I need at least 10 women, 15 max just to have a little breathing room to write a page's worth of information on each. Help a guy out! Thank you very much!

EDIT: Forgot to mention that has to be solely American, but anyone who visited America between the years count.

I heard somewhere that Elizabeth actually had a lot more Catholics die under her reign than Protestants under Mary's. Is this true? How accurate is it to call Mary a bloody queen and Elizabeth a merciful queen?

Of course it would not have been called what we call it today, but was form of wine was it closest to?

Were these just lying around without a lord, or were the previous holders kicked out? Were they shaved off someone else's stuff and newly made dukedoms? Were land/titles explicitly kept empty so that kings could hand them out as favors? Did the nobility know how many empty titles were lying around at any given time?

How did we get the modern names, and when did that happen?

I hope my question is fairly self explanatory but on a personal note I'm very curious about the last part of my question. Just how popular were these riots? From what I've gathered the rioters seemed to be pro PRC which runs counter to what I've seen these days in the news with many Hong Kongers and Macanese hating the mainland and wanting independence. So were these rioters a fringe group? Or has the general opinion of the mainland changed over the past several decades? Or is it something else entirely?

Hope I can get some great responses! Thanks!