I am reading Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone and he writes:

And by the habeas corpus act, 31 Car. II. c. 2. (that second magna carta, and stable bulwark of our liberties) it is enacted, that no subject of this realm, who is an inhabitant of England, Wales, or Berwick, shall be sent prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, or places beyond the seas; (where they cannot have the benefit and protection of the common law) but that all such imprisonment’s shall be illegal;

Why is Berwick awarded special status here? I assume Berwick-upon-Tweed is meant here, is it because it's bordering Scotland?

or has every one-term president walked away from it all?

I've been curious about the use of salting for food preservation for some time. I would assume that you would buy it at a market day and bring a slab home. Who brings the salt to market? How is it transported? Would it be cheaper to buy foodstuffs that are already salted?

I picked a location that's about as inland as it gets in the UK. Other places are of course welcome in responses!

I was wondering one thing. Before 1933 there must have been in Germany a significant number of scholars and faculties specialized in Slavic languages and literature. What happened to them? In German universities was the study of Slavic literature forbidden? Only frowned upon? Forced to only study it to prove its so called "inferiority"? Did people only study Polish, Russian and other languages of "inferior people" only as "the language of the enemy"? Was there any Russophile, Polonophile, etc. left in German universities when the war started?

He was talking about the special times that the Romans surrendered power to a dictator, and noted that Cincinnatus was the longest ruling Roman dictator (16 days). He said that future dictators, seeing the humility in this, felt a sort of competition to stay dictator for the shortest amount of time. I asked whether this was actually good for the state, and he said yes, because issues were solved very quickly. Is this valid?

This is a practice I have never heard of, but I recently read something by a TV critic where he compared something in fiction to the "southern men of supposed civility watching men die from the hilltop in their lawn chairs and lemonade".

I suppose he could have been talking about generals, but the idea I get from the text is that southern civilian elites, upon hearing of a battle likely to occur near them, would assemble at whatever distance they deemed safe to observe the fighting armies amidst a generally festive atmosphere (hence lemonade and lawn chairs) while rooting for their side to win, not unlike a sporting event.

Is there any documented instance of such practices during the civil war, or is what I have described a purely fictional/anecdotal notion?

As the question says, there are many things that I read in history but you know that there are too many view on every subject in history, so how do I know which opinion is real and true?

We're all familiar with the scene from Monty Phyton but here's the full quote for a refresher.

'All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?'

And peace of course.

My question is this. If a group of ancient Judeans from the Roman period were to sit down and assess what the Romans did for them what would they really say?

1. What's on the Monty Phyton that shouldn't be there? Either because the Romans didn't do it or it was done before the Romans arrived.
2. What's not on the list that should be there (good and bad)?
3. Could they safely conclude that they lived better than those Judeans who lived just before the Romans conquered?

During the Renaissance, when artists began to portray mythological scenes or figures in paintings or sculpture, did the Catholic church accept this? Did they ever oppose the increased interest in depicting these Pagan subjects/consider it heretical? I know there were specific individuals who opposed it (Savanarola for example) but how was it viewed by the church as a whole?

Its probably one of the most entertaining questions to discuss, and something that we have no way of finding a definite answer to without breaking a ridiculous amount of laws and spending a ridiculous amount of money to make these two big cats fight to the death.

Luckily, for those of us interested in an answer, the Romans had access to these big cats and a means of making them fight to the death in an arena.

Are there any historical records of the Romans forcing these cats to fight and, if so, which big cat generally won?

I've tried looking it up but I can't seem to find the joke. I'm also nervous to hear the answer lest I die from laughter myself.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Staying within the 20 year rule: in 1995, twenty years after the end of the VN war, did some officials still use the old name (Saigon)? How about "the people"?

My family fled Saigon in 1975. I never got a chance to ask my grand parents what they would have called the city now. My mom still says Saigon.