.

Based on a showerthought from front page I was real curious about a day in the life of a medieval king. Specifically routines/meals. Is there any written accounts? Thank you!

You often hear of Holocaust survivors touring the world and speaking about their experiences to large groups of people. After slavery was abolished in America, did ex-slaves ever do something similar?

I'm curious to know what would have actually changed for people in the settlements themselves.

Would someone working in government in March still be in the same position in May, and would they notice any major change in their routines?

Was there a noticeable change for other people living in the settlements? Did any post-1867 reformers appear on stage and start to push notable changes? Did anything else interesting happen as an either direct or indirect result of the shift toward London?

I'll confess, I did submit this question a wee while back, and it didn't get too much traction - but I know there are folks with backgrounds in gender studies, obscenity, cultural history and the like who post here sometimes, and I think it's a fairly interesting question c:

The question occurred to me after a discussion on whether the (seeming) rise in preference for camshows and 'amateur' videos was related to a desire to reclaim authenticity re: 'real' sex.

As a follow up question: has the rise of globalisation and mass communication lead to a 'smoothing over' of styles? Were there historical differences in subject matter and film making technique which were idiosyncratic to certain countries or major production companies which fell out of fashion or were discarded?

Ta.

Edit: cheers to sowser for his brisk moderating efforts c:

VDH has made a name for himself with a number of "West is Best" publications in the popular press such as "Carnage and Culture", and whether one agrees with him or not, it is simply a matter of fact that he has a pretty strong agenda which he himself has recognized as Neoconservative, and let's just say that when he is straying out of Ancient Warfare, he courts a lot of controversy in his defense of "western values".

But, well, he did make a name for himself as a scholar of ancient warfare, so I'm wondering how he is viewed with regards to his work that doesn't stray into modern political grandstanding. It seems like his defense of the 'western way of war' is pretty ingrained in his work, so I'm wondering if it even can be separated.

Apologies if it's been asked before, but how well has The Art of Not Being Governed held up in the decade or so since its release? He's a political scientist by training, but the book is labeled 'An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia'. Does the historical evidence indicate

1. Highlanders in SE Asia are largely stateless?

2. This is a deliberate choice?

Was the main reason mainly a question of authority? Would the translation of the Bible democratize religion in Europe, diminishing the authority of the Catholic church? Where their many other reasons for stopping the translation of the Bible?

The UK maintains the Commonwealth with many former British colonies, and France still is quite connected it many of its former colonies too. Following decolonization, what role did the Dutch play in Indonesia? Was the relationship a good one, antagonistic, indifferent? Has there been similar, active military aid like we see with France in Africa?

Are there any reasons why so many Germanic royals are named Frederick?

Is it just because they liked naming children after eachother or is this just a typical royal name?

Like the current crown-prince of Denmark is named Frederick, and his grand-father was also called Frederick.

I'm pretty clueless about this sort of thing, and this may be the wrong place so apologies if it is.

I'm wondering what British Rifle Platoons were made up of in WW2, and if they had snipers/ the closest thing to a sniper there was in this time period (I've heard that traditional snipers were pretty rare in the British Army in WW2). Would there be a member of the rifle platoon with a sufficiently scoped rifle that he could be called a sniper? As I say, I'm pretty clueless.

Thanks in advance, and apologies again if any of these are stupid questions/ I fucked up the terminology. I'm only just starting out in terms of my knowledge of military history.

Edit: I should say I've been trying to do some reading on this but it's all going through in one ear and out the other, so to speak.

[deleted]

This question came to my head as I read the following quote by an unnamed WW2 veteran from "Second-hand time" by Svetlana Alexievich:

They sent reinforcements, but after two or three days, they were dead, almost all of them. A few survived. They were lucky! It was only until late 1943 when we had learned how to wage war. That's when we started to fight the right way. We no longer had as many casualties...

While I've heard this fact many times, I've never really reflected how this would be felt or experienced by the individual soldier.

[deleted]

The right to privacy is not an explicit right in the Constitution. Instead, it seems that 20th Century Supreme Court rulings have defined such a privacy.

Does that mean that Americans use to not care about their "right to privacy"? Or was it simply understood differently in the past?

Also, is the right to privacy associated with the rise of telecommunication?