I'm familiar with the idea of Stakhanovism and Stalin's collectivization strategies, but I'm curious as to how managers dealt with shortages, the gray market, labor problems (if any), etc.

Book / Author recommendations would be really nice.

Nero competed as a jockey in 67 AD and got jolted out of his chariot. Nevertheless he won because the judges concluded that he would have won if not for the accident. Do we have any other people who managed to combine a career in other fields (for Nero: arts and politics) with such supreme success in sports?

I can see the Victorian age as anywhere from 1836-1936. But for this question let's cut it down to 1836-1900. What were engines on large warships like? How did they change from steam, to engines relying on oil? What kind of engines did warships have such as ironclads, monitors, cruisers, and dreadnoughts? Did the majority of them rely on steam-power?

Hopefully these questions aren't in violation of the rules.

I am currently reading the former's To Hell and Back, and although I'm pleased with what I have read, I am also slightly disappointed. It reads to me like a general history written for non-specialists. I suppose I was looking for something more analytical, like his Profiles in Power book on Hitler. How do the rest of his books stack up?

As far as Evans, I have seen his work everywhere, but I have never actually read any of him.

I would appreciate your thoughts! Thank you!

What were the milestones of war in the 15th century? How do you know when you're winning or losing? Did you take cities?

Were cities still enclosed with walls?

Were knights still being trained?

Did the english still require archery practice on sunday?

How were armies assmbled? Were there career soldiers?

Who enforced the law? How was law enforcement assembled?

In the New Testament, St. Paul famously appeals to Caesar before Festus in order to go to Rome to preach. Paul was unique among the apostles because he was a Roman citizen. Was every citizen across the empire allowed to appeal to Caesar? And how could this work logistically if people all over the empire could appeal to the very top?

If so what info ?

Hiya,

I'm trying to find old maps of cities, or maps/reconstructions of how they might have looked, as the title suggests, particularly Central Asian ones. Unfortunately, I'm having little luck (Google's turning up blanks), so I thought that people here might be better-equipped to help.

So, for cities like Samarkand, Khiva, Kyzyl Kum, Bukhara and Tashkent, do maps or archaeological surveys exist, and if so, how do I find them?

Why did France give up the war when Paris fell in WW2? Why did they not regroup their remaining army and continue to fight, particularly with British support?

Just got done reading Imperial Spain by J.H. Elliot. The history of the empire was a little depressing b/c it seems like they fizzled out due to military, economic, and social issues.This may be a poor question, but I'm wondering what England and France and other contemporary empires did to achieve truly lasting success?

The Atlantic crossing could take anything from 3-8 weeks depending on crossing conditions, and without any sophisticated way of controlling the temperature of fresh produce, how did importers of the time manage to import a wide variety of exotic fruit and vegetables without them spoiling, in order to sell on European markets?

Many thanks in advance!

I have been intrigued by the philosophical issue of morality, and am wondering if you guys can help me by pointing out information regarding how different societies in different periods of history defined their laws.

I'm basically just a wee bit confused with the institution of monarchy as a whole, from the sociological and anthropological aspect.

I've always assumed that most monarchs ruled over a territory or settlement (i.e. very state-like). However, the more I research, the more I encounter the idea that most monarchs in fact ruled over nations rather than territories. Of course, the realities might have varied, but I'm looking at the ideal of how these monarchs rationalised and justified their powers.

For example, Napoleon was Emperor of the French; not Emperor of France. Albert I was King of the Belgians, not King of Belgium. Alfred the Great was King of the West Saxons (and later, King of the Angles and the Saxons/Anglo-saxons).

So this means that said Monarchs ruled over the nation/people, rather that the territory that had clear boundaries. I assume this made sense, since at the time, states didn't have set territories; therefore, a monarch held power as far as he could enforce (even if an Englishman was living in France, he was still technically a subject of the English King).

But then, we have the city-state monarchs. Was Hadrian Emperor of the Romans? Or Emperor of Rome?

So I'm a bit confused. Did we used to have heads-of-state ruling nations, then shifted to territories when the world began to adopt of the Westphalian state model with its set boundaries? Or have heads-of-state always been either one or the other, with most societies were either ruled by territory or by nationhood?

Is there a visible, noted, or any existing specialization in Papal history? And what works, research, and historians exist for this specialization?

Thanks!

I'm just trying to imagine nowadays what it would look like if Obama or Clinton were in the House, and it seems pretty crazy. I'm curious if it was just a different time and no one thought twice about it, or if JQA was actually treated differently as a representative.