Sub-questions:

• What was the role, historically, of taiko?
• Was taiko playing a communal activity or would there be professional taiko performers?
• Did it involve some of the acting and performance elements that come with modern taiko?
• Do we have any record of what the compositions were like?
• Are there any traditions that can be traced back far into history, like customs, rhythms or phrases?

I'm not sure if there's anyone studying the history of facial hair, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's a facial hair expert who can answer this.

*Edit: "Kinda of" is strictly a typo

A week ago, I received a (EDIT: third) warning and a subsequent seven day ban for not breaking any rules, as I was informed by a moderator:

You reposted a removed answer. There's no specific rule against that. It's common sense that you should not do that. Answers get removed for a reason, so don't repost them.

This settles the conversation, as far as I'm concerned.

See you next week!

Before this I had received a (EDIT: second) warning for not answering the original poster's question. This was expanded upon in a PM from another moderator, saying that my post had been removed for the following reason:

Our rules requires that top-level answers address the question comprehensively. It is of course fine to point out misconceptions in a question within the context of a broader answer. Your post did not respond to OP's question in a manner one would expect from someone "reasonable degree of expertise in specific areas of the past."

My subsequent ban derived from having reposted my original post by adding it to a second comment. The comment in question was written in response to a comment chain on my original post, and I added my original post with a disclaimer saying:

I will put my top-level answer here to provide context, since it was removed for not answering the original question:

This addition was clearly separated from my response and was in no way an attempt to somehow sneak it past the rules. I was operating under the provided assumption that only top-level answers required to address the question at hand, which I interpreted as permitting me the freedom to respond to a question about my (removed) original post. I was later informed otherwise:

Saying "top-level comment" was my mistake. In fact, AskHistorians rules have not differentiated between comment placement within a thread in 3 years.

This was six hours after I had written my post. Since my response directly expanded upon what I had written in my original post, I felt that my original post, no longer being a top-level answer, still was relevant to my response. It was for this that I received a warning and subsequent ban. This being despite me not violating any rules, as explicitly made clear by the moderators.

I feel that warnings and bans shouldn’t based on common sense, particularly not given the aforementioned misunderstandings, which is all this really is. As with all unspoken guidelines, common sense is open to interpretation. What one individual considers common sense might not correspond to another, and it doesn't necessarily take the situation into account.

This is by no means an attempt to disparage the moderators of this subreddit or the work they do. Their dedication to this subreddit's rules is a large part of why the quality is so high, but that doesn't mean the outcome always is positive, which I feel is the case here.

The obvious way to proceed is to add a sentence to the rules about contributors under no circumstances reposting removed answers, in full or in part. In addition, I feel that moderators should avoid issuing warnings and subsequent bans for things that are not rule violations, regardless of whether or not it goes against common sense. In this incident neither my actions nor intentions were disingenuous, and a comment or message saying "please do not re-use removed content" would have sufficed.

You could imagine that catching and prosecuting pirates might have been difficult in most cases. Did your average pirate stand a good chance of making a fortune without any long term consequences?

It seems like Canada isn't really mentioned a lot in this important event. I'd like to know about Canadians who were people such as soldiers, sailors, pilots, or even nurses. (overseas or in the trenches).

EDIT: And also the minorities who were discriminated and did labour work for the war.

[deleted]

Is it really historically common for heads of state to be alone hammering out key negotiating points of a treaty? Given the notoriously rocky nature of diplomacy, gigantic stakes and extremely complex layers of interests usually involved, it seems like a lot for one-on-one discussions. Especially when there are so many ambassadors, diplomats, interpreters, secretaries, and other failsafes in place to avoid misunderstandings.

I'm wondering about the 20th century in particular, but if there's a general trend in the nature of how treaties are made I'd be very interested.

Also how many ships did different navy expect commanders to command at once?

WWI vs WWII

What factors contributed to this idea?

I'm curious when society shifted to the idea that you could improve your own strength and such without it being tied into what job or occupation you had, and if there are any pre-modern examples of strength training specifically for non-occupational reasons.

Nazi Germany invaded the USSR, expecting an easy fight. Hitler is quoted as saying "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down". In the end, the USSR was not defeated, and helped to defeat Germany.

Based on what was known to those outside the USSR in 1941 (when the invasion began), how likely was it that Germany would defeat the USSR? i.e. How sensible a prediction was Hitler's prediction that it would be an easy fight? Nazi ideology hated communism and the slavic people, so I can understand how they might have been blinded by ideology.

Basically, do we have any records of what the UK or USA thought when they heard that Germany had invaded the USSR? Was it "Whelp, the Soviets are screwed now" or "That was stupid, the Soviets will kick the Germany's behind?"

Was it one citizen/noble, or several, who invented the language and taught it to others? Was there a classroom setting?

(I think "deafness during the Middle Ages" might be a very niche topic, hence why I'm phrasing my question this way.)

I recently read a fantasy novel set in the 1200s with a deaf character, and I'm very curious about the reality of people living with deafness in the Middle Ages.

However, I'm not sure of the best way to even find books or articles on this topic--a lot of the deaf history books I find on Amazon.com seem to focus on 19th century & later, or specifically American deaf history.

In a more general search I found some article abstracts but seem to be from non-history journals and might seem otherwise sketchy.

I did find a review of a book by Irina Metzler about "disability in the Middle Ages" but I don't know how to evaluate if this book would meet my needs (plus, holy cow, that book is expensive).

I would really just like to find a couple good articles or books on this topic, hopefully relatively recent.

I've been looking for a first hand account of the early medieval period in Northern Europe. I know written history from this area doesn't really go back much further than that. If anyone can give me any information on first person accounts only, I'd greatly appreciate it!

At one point, Hugh Johnson referred to Huey Long (one of America's great demagogues) as a combination of "Peter the Hermit, Napoleon Bonaparte, Sitting Bull, William Hohenzollern, the Mahdi of the Sudan, Hitler, Lenin, Trotsky, and the Leatherwood God" (emphasis mine).

What I don't get is how Sitting Bull's name got in there. Was Sitting Bull a demagogue? Or was this simple anti-Native American sentiment?

The definition of "demagogue" I would use (from Michael Signer) is:

1. They fashion themselves as a man of the masses.
2. They trigger great waves of emotion.
3. They use those waves for political benefit.
4. They threaten or break the rules of governance.

As a follow-up, I would note that even if he meets these criteria, it doesn't make it fair for Johnson to lump Sitting Bull in with Hitler or Lenin. I'm skeptical that would be a valid comparison, but let's humor Johnson. If we treat his comparison in the most charitable light possible, is there any validity?

I can find discussions, without sources, claiming it is because they were afraid that the public would find it too easy to use, while others say it was easier to forge.

Thousands of years ago the US had a thriving civilization of many Native American tribes, but the modern American sees themselves more as a successor to Europe than to Native American culture.

Since Egyptians nowadays speak Arabic, and was invaded both by Greeks and Arabs, would modern-day Egyptians see themselves as continuing an Ancient Egyptian culture (of pharos and mummies), or the Arabian/Islamic culture?

1 Year was 7 Dog years*.

Whoops