So how does a play get produced in the past? Does it work like in a modern theatre company or production crew where they come together, get handed a script, rehearse and then act it out?

How would the actors, before universal literacy, read the scripts?

I'm trying to research Russian/Slavic folklore about a fairylike shapeshifter that lives in the woods.

The most typical sources I find refer to the name Lesapan or Leshy. I'm specifically interested in the creature known as the Borovoi, but I'm unable to find more than a vague reference on Wikipedia.

If there are any historians familiar with Russian/Slavic folklore, I would appreciate your guidance.

At the very least, I'm interested in the geographic and cultural origin of the Borovoi specifically.

Any interesting material related to the origin of Leshy is welcome as well. It's been difficult to track down specific tales/stories.

Im writing a historical fiction novel and my character is an immortal alchemist. Im working him into history by having him assume the identity of many real-life mysterious figures. For the last 400 years he has been between England and America and i want to work him into a character that had an influence or at least met the American founding fathers. I was looking into Ben Franklin and the Hellfire clubs when i saw something about a person known only as "the Professor" who was present during the signing of the Declaration of the independence, I've also read into the idea that many believe that this was the Comte de Saint Germain who i know from previous research was not only a freemason but also a man who was extremely mysterious and also known as an Alchemist, can someone shed some light on this and if I'm totally wrong could you possibly inform me of another associate of the founding fathers who is mysterious enough to have my character assume his identity for a couple of decades (doesn't need a connection to alchemy, just any random dude that i can incorporate)?

Were central jails at all common? Exile?

I know Denmark controlled some of the Virgin Islands but why weren't they more succesful

I was thinking the other day that if you had never seen a person wearing a necktie, it would probably appear a little silly and impractical. So, I was curious wear wearing an extra, unnecessary piece of clothing came from and why it rose to be the societal norm for civilized society.

The title says it all really. I remember hearing about this theory several years ago but I cannot remember what the term was actually called. Thank you for the help!

I recall learning that Tasmania had a fort built to protect it from potential Russian annexation. But what about the fertile south east and south west of the continent? Why weren't the Germans for instance interested?

[deleted]

How did the leaders, the senate, or Caesar Augustus react?

I've tried Google, doesn't work for me. I'm probably missing something though. Anyone have any thoughts or ideas? What I'm looking for, the man came from Germany and all my research leads me to believe he landed in Baltimore in the time period posted above.

Interested in the causes and the events of the protests, and the role of the Situationist International. Are there any recommended books on the topic?

My question is asked largely with WW2 in mind, though I am interested in the protocol in general. It would make sense to me if the highest ranking officer would be designated as Senior Officer, but in a camp with officers from different branches, or where there are multiple officers of equivalent rank, how was seniority decided?

Recently, several of my friends and I were discussing witch hunts during the 15th to 17th centuries, and one of them mentioned the above question. While I seem to recall reading sources here and there that mentioned men also being targeted, most of my (limited) reading on the subject seems to be associated solely with women. So, what were the reasons that (at least from what I've seen) women were the main targets of witch hunts?

Would their empire have been ruled as one super state from Berlin? A federal (USA-esq) system? An Empire similar to Britain's with many nations holding "Dominion Status"?

Many employees of the English east India company had to spend the majority of their time on the subcontinent due to the enormous time taken to sail back to the British isles. With these officers being "stuck" in India, how did they adapt to Indian life and assimilate to the local culture?

Even though they are nearly 100 years apart, I've always considered them to have been fought with (seemingly) very similar weaponry. But a Centuary is a long time, so I would assume a lot had changed. What significant advancements had been made between the two wars?

I am reading "America's Longest War" by George Herring and a few trends are sticking out to me.

It seems that the greatest obstacle to US success in Vietnam, once committed, was that the South Vietnamese government, from Diem on to the military Junta and onwards, was extremely ineffective, authoritarian, and unpopular. It seemed to be failing in several key aspects. First was its policy on human rights, particularly among religious groups such as the Catholics and the Buddhists. Second was its inability to convince the South Vietnamese population that Communism was not a desirable state of affairs: with a great deal of success, the Communists were able to infiltrate and receive a broad base of support within the South Vietnamese peasantry due to South Vietnam's ineffectiveness in providing any tangible land reform, democratic reform, or general social development. Third, the North Vietnamese in a sense had a moral high ground among the population, as they were able to successfully portray themselves as being the 'anti-imperialist' faction and the South Vietnamese as puppets to a new master (having just defeated the French, this sentiment was running high.) All in all, it seemed that no matter how much the US threw at the North and against the Viet Cong, without a unified, committed, and effective South Vietnamese government and population, it was all an exercise in futility.

Therefore, could a better strategy for the USA, perhaps after the assassination of Diem where the USA could have installed a more cooperative government, have been something like:

• Promote the strategic hamlets program in a major sense, with much more planning, resources, and thought put into it. Ensure the provision of actual security, in combination with real localist democratic reforms, land reform, and economic reforms to win support of the rural peasantry, and therefore resist Communist infiltration / support

• Engage in more counter-insurgency, social development, and 'hearts and minds' efforts rather than strategic bombing

• Enforce a policy of religious toleration and cease the harassment and discrimination towards religious minorities

• Encourage the South Vietnamese Army and other Allies (South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc) to take a much more public and involved role with the war, thus avoiding charges of this being an 'American war'

• Promote the role of the military / engage in 'coup-proofing' to ensure the stability of the current regime

• End strategic bombing in the South, while ramping it up heavily on the North, as opposed to the gradualist approach taken by Johnson and Operation Rolling Thunder

• Securing the Ho Chi Minh trail early to blunt North Vietnamese infiltration and harassment attempts

I suppose that theoretically anything is possible, but is there any source that you can think of that would perhaps give me more insight into whether such an approach would have been operationally implementable, strategically sound, and / or advantageous towards the US strategic objective of ensuring a non-Communist, independent South Vietnam?

Was there any way to win that war?

I know that trade and goods from China traveled the silk road to the Roman Empire, and that both China and the Roman Empire knew of each others existence to some small extent. My main question is did this knowledge ever translate into an actual official expedition from either empires to make contact with each other, or was a mission like that unfeasible for the time period because of the great distances involved. As a secondary question if traveling the silk road between Europe and China was possible but there was no official expedition, are there any records of citizens or explorers/traders from either empire ending up in each other's lands?