What do they get right/wrong, what narratives and myths do they perpetuate, how do you feel about how they use history as a setting for grand strategy?

I'm wondering what people did to spend time during the Middle Ages, in Europe especially. We often hear about how the Middle Ages were a dark time, and I learned that this is mostly a misconception. So I'm wondering, what did people do to spend the time, for example were there proper restaurants (not like taverns but actual restaurants with waiters and menus etc), and did people go to the theatre to watch plays before the Renaissance?

​

Thanks for your answers!

Side question. Did they consider handling over only the "new territories"? Since the 99 year lease dealt with only those parts of Hong Kong, unless I am misinformed.

what exactly happened, I heard when something bad happened they would put ballet on all channels. would someone be able to explain this please?

Specifically I'm wondering if as Columbus was casting about for funding of a Western passage to India that would've rebuffed him b/c those Sagas indicated that the passage might be blocked by another continent.

By the time Churchill died in 1965, 12 of Ian Flemings' novels and 3 of the films had been released. As one of the founders of the British intelligence services during both World Wars, did Winston Churchill ever read a Bond story or watch one of the Connery films? If so, did he like them?

Current French state is often called the Fifth Republic. What were the changes made in 1958 to deserve considering it a new form of government?

It was also preceded by a republic, unlike other times when a republic was re-established after periods of monarchy or foreign ocupation.

I'm clearly misunderstanding something here; I'd love help figuring out what.

Here's the basic reasoning behind feudalism and vassalage, as far as I understand it. You've conquered a lot of lands, but you don't have the bureaucracy to effectively manage it. To make it easier, you break up your land and give most of it to some of your generals to administer. You no longer have as much control, but you can now extract taxes without as much hassle. However, as far as I can tell, your lands still have just as many administrators---you just don't have as much authority.

Here's my math for a fictional, simplified kingdom. Some part of this logic must be where I'm going wrong.

• You're a king with five provinces. Each province needs a reeve to collect taxes, a bailiff to resolve disputes, and a steward to coordinate everything else. That's a total of 15 administrators, though 10 of those report to you through your stewards. (I know I'm making some extremely simplified roles, but it's the numbers that matter.)
• You decide that that's too much, so you make your stewards into barons. Each baron rules a province, but still needs a bailiff and reeve. So that's still 15 administrators total, and still 5 direct reports, but you've told your direct reports that they don't have to listen to you as much. The bureaucracy is still the same, but you've lost quite a bit of authority.

So, since the numbers are still the same, why give up some of your ability to control your subjects? I assume that the numbers are where I'm going wrong, or maybe the numbers are the same but the costs behind each role are less. Regardless, I'd love to understand better.

Thanks in advance!

If the border was going to be drawn by the river why did they left the city and surrounding outside ?

Slightly facetious title aside, what was the theatrical culture in England towards the end of the Elizabethan/beginning of the Stewart era? We’ve all heard of Shakespeare (and Marlowe, to an extent) and know his plays were popular, but to what extent did they dominate the theatrical scene? Were other playwrights as prolific during that time?

While attempting to apply modern terms to historical figures and peoples can be sometimes reductive, I find looking back with new understanding can help us as a species identify what problems seem to repeat over and over, making them stand out as "human problems" rather than just the product of one time or culture.

I've often felt that Julius Caesar's rise to power using military might and a strong-man mentality to enact control over a representative democracy as being noticeably similar to the rise of fascism and dictatorships in the modern age.

More specific questions: In what ways was Julius Caesar fascist and in what ways was he not? Did fascist leaders draw inspiration from Caesar, and could this be the reason for the parallels? In what ways is fascism of the 20th century different from other populist/dictatorial movements from history? Are there other historical leaders that fit into our understanding of conservative populism and/or fascism? What readings do you recommend for study on populism/facism throughout history?

I've shot contemporary shotguns and rifles (very stupidly) without hearing protection. One time I shot skeet for an hour, my right ear had substantial hearing loss for 4-5 days following, it was like I had water in my ear for 4 days.

I was just watching a documentary about WWI and it showed a clip of a soldier firing a belt fed machine gun with no hearing protection, and all I could think about were his ears.

I know they didn't have much in the way of hearing protection in WWI and WWII. The majority of soldiers who returned must have had some pretty serious damage to their hearing with the continuous machine gun and rifle fire.

Sorry for the grim question but it's something that I am curious of. However, I can't find any online resources that touches on this specific topic. What the search results yield to me is how much the Nazis plundered from Jewish assets, but nothing on how much the genocide cost the German state. I'm curious about this because intuitively, it would be a huge waste of resources to be persecuting millions of people. Aside from the loss of talent (Jewish scientists fled Germany along with their know-how on creating the atom bomb), I imagine that setting up death camps would also take up valuable manpower that could have instead been sent to the frontline, along with the finances that could have instead been used somewhere else.

Although water was cheaper (free?) and easy to access, beer was a common drink during the Middle Ages, especially in northern and eastern Europe where the climate did not favor grape cultivation and wine production.

I know that abbeys became centers of beer production during this time. However, were monasteries and other Christian institutions actual production breweries? Did the industrialization of brewing emerge in the Middle Ages or a later period? Were there secular production facilities reserved for making beer? Where did the average peasant of, say, the duchy of Brabant get his pint from?