Is for a fictional novel that I'm currently writing. I'm accepting books, websites, podcasts, YT videos or any other source that would make me dwell propelly on the matter.

:)

I'm doing research on the Reason the Samurai social class ended in 1877 and i have a question.

I'm wondering what exactly the Plan was of the Rebellion in the first place. is it known if there was a plan in the first place, or was it just to protect the samurai social class itself?

It isn’t exactly clear to me how did conquest reach the conquered people, of course every conquest is different. I wish I could find a source showing their perspective, experiences and feelings. Do you know of such source?

What was the upper and lower class reactions to her being handed over to the English and her subsequent execution by fire.

Thank you!

Fainting couches.

Were they really manufactured for fainters? How often were people (most likely women, right) fainting that they necessitated a dedicated piece of furniture?

Assuming women weren't having constant syncopal episodes in the parlor, how did we get the name for fainting couches? What does that tell us about household design, wealth display based on manufactured goods, and even perceptions/lived experience of women's health and frailty?

Thanks in advance!

I found out about the New Cambridge Medieval history collection of 6 books, but at $70 a piece in paperback, I'm trying to see if there are any alternatives.

I would like a broad coverage of the Middle Ages period, not just a specific era/event. For example the set mentioned above goes in extreme detail about all the periods from the 5th century up to the 15th century.

I don't know how to really describe it, but basically something as good as the Cambridge set, but it does not cost $300+.

Thanks in advance.

I'm not asking about language, of course; that would have to be adjusted between English and French in my example. I'm asking about the subject matter, the things talked and not talked about, the ideas and concepts used, the kind of humor employed, and the other cultural nuances separate from the language itself.

(I'm also aware they lived in slightly different time periods and would never actually meet, although I think the periods are close enough to make a fair comparison at the high level I'm making).

Even though both Shakespeare and Moliere wrote both tragedies and comedies, I always thought of Shakespeare as the more iconic tragedist, and Moliere as the more iconic comedist, at least within their time and place of work. Looking deeper at the kind of things they focused on, I can't help but feel both could only thrive in their culture, but not in the other, even if they had been equally fluent in both languages.

For example, subject-matter wise, Moliere's predominant focus on love affairs, with a rather casual attitude to love and lovers, seems very stereotypical of how we perceive French culture, and might be considered decadent, or even indecent, by a contemporary English audience, which had a bigger influence of Puritans. Conversely, Shakespeare's coverage of political subjects, open criticism of historic kings, and sympathetic (or at least morally ambiguous) treatment of regicides, pretenders, and civil war, might not be acceptable by the far more absolutist French government, or even seen as seditious.

And style-wise, similarly, Moliere's style may be seen as too jovial and non-serious to an English audience (irrespective of the subject matter), whereas Shakespeare might come across as too intense for much of the French audience.

This kind of cultural and societal pressure might do more than just restrict what an existing author would write about. It might shape their style of how they write the things they do. It might also provide selection pressure that determines what kind of artists make it to the top in the first place. France may have had an aspiring Shakespeare, and England an aspiring Moliere, but neither ever became famous because their style and subject didn't resonate with their audiences.

Then again, these might be just my personal biases based on stereotypes, and I wonder if a historian would see them as such.

My question isn't specifically tied to these two authors, I'm only using them as an example (although, I admit, one I'm particularly curious about). More broadly, I was wondering whether how much weight do historians give to the environment and culture of a great artist - and to what extend it's legitimate to look at an artist's work primarily through the lens of their environment. Could one analyze an artist, or several artists, and through them, make conclusions about the broader society they were part of? Could one analyze the society, and make conclusions about the author's work and decisions? Is there any reading mateiral on this type of literary criticism?

After watching The Last Duel (where great emphasis is put on this 'fact') I struggle to believe this was true. In a time where war and the rape of women on the losing side was common I find it hard to believe people genuinely believed any resulting pregnancies meant she enjoyed it. Is this another Hollywood inaccuracies?

Even in 40 BC roman empire, they have detailed records about everything. Meanwhile, it seems like indian and Chinese history is very hazy.

It seems like because of wrriten records, we know more about Europe 500 BC than india 900 AD

Why?

I'm writing a story based in the 1940s and I need to know what kind of printing press technology there was then. I know it wasn't the early original printing press, but I know it wasn't the computer printer we have now. I'm not sure what kind of technology was available then.

Thanks!

Like the title says I'm in the beginning processes of designing a new board game themed around WW2, more specifically the industries people behind the scenes that are often glossed over or barely touched on. Before I start to actually work on the project, I want to refresh on potential events, themes and characters that I might be able to use as inspiration.

Even better if the works in questioned specifically focus on marginalized communities or areas of the war that are not often spoken about. By no means does this have to be U.S. specific, my main goal is to try and avoid a white ethnocentric/ American focused series before even deciding what the game is going to be.

My wife is a gastroenterology nurse practitioner for many years and I work as an ICU nurse. For a long time I have said "I will be their shepard" when ordered to do doing the various things we do to make people poop. Bonus points if you can provide me with hieroglyphs for the position above. My wife would like to get them tattooed. Love this sub. Thanks.

I am reading about the Boxer rebellion, and the actions of the Qing court is absolutely baffling to me, and I am hoping someone could shed some light on their motivations.

1. The best Qing military units were regional armies under the commands of Li Hongzhang, Yuan Shikai, and Zhang Zhidong, none of whom wanted to support the Boxers. It seems improbable to me that the Qing court would not coordinate with them before declaring war on foreign powers.

2. Before the European powers intervened, generals such as Yuan Shikai was already suppressing the Boxers. Why didn't the Qing court continue this policy? It seems to me, suppressing peasant rebellions is a whole lot easier than fighting the European powers.

3. Even after declaring war on the foreigners, I'm reading that the Qing army in the capital were ordered to protect the British Legation which was besieged by the Boxers. There's some accounts that the Qing artillery aimed badly on purpose. This all seems to contradictory, what was the point?

• why do we, it should read why do we....