And by published, I mean as in it was legally allowed to be brought. And by pornography, I mean sex is being shown.

Author of seven books on Wall Street history, the national debt, the Atlantic Cable, etc. Columnist for Barron's, freaquent op-ed writer for WSJ

Many books on Ottoman history mention the custom of confining male relatives of the ruling sultan in kafes or so-called "Golden Cages" for life. Some books also claim that during the later years of the Empire, the confinement became so severe that some princes went insane or had serious problems with social interaction. For example, the hugely entertaining Lords of the Horizons by Jason Goodwin claims that some princes didn't even learn to talk.

I know Goodwin's book isn't an academic source, so how much truth is there in these stories of sensory deprivation and solitary confinement? I've understood that princes usually spent their childhood in the lively imperial harem before being removed to the kafes at the onset of puberty, so surely they would have acquired at least rudimentary social skills? Do we have any records of insane or mute princes in these circumstances?

EDIT: Typo

Some of the criticism of the prospective deal between Iran and the US-led international group about the Iranian nuclear program likens it to Chamberlains decision to appease Hitler in the late 1930s. This has me wondering: while in hindsight the policy had an obviously awful outcome, but in general I prefer to judge decisions based by the quality of the reasoning as opposed to the outcome. So in that light: given the information European leaders had in the late 1930s, was appeasement a bad decision?

Alexander is known for being a great conqueror, but how was he as an administrator?

What was his overall vision like regarding policies implemented in his conquered territories?

How popular were they?

Given his rather short period of not being on campaign, how much direct control did he have in the implementation of them, and how much was devolved to regional leaders while he was off fighting?

Also given the short period of time between conquest and death, and much was even put in place?

One of the guests on the BBC's In Our Time episode on the California Gold Rush claimed that the gold coming out of California mines increased the supply of gold coins in the United State twenty times. Further, he claimed that there was a mint in San Francisco by 1860. These mines were private claims, so how did the gold flakes and nuggets they pulled from the rivers of northern California become coins? Did the government purchase the ore, mint the coins, and then issue them in fashion? Did private banks commission the mints to convert gold they purchased into US currency?

How would a farmer have addressed a blacksmith or a soldier a merchant? We have a lot of records of titles for the imperial family but how would the average citizen of empire have addressed each other in daily life?

So if a Russian army managed to capture some German Tiger tanks, would they use them on battlefield? What if Soviets accidentally shoot them or no one knew how to drive these? What happened to these tanks or cars?

he meant the way they all had to line up in formation and hold on to each other's backs so you could pull an incapacitated man out of the fray

EDIT: coincidence

I know I've read somewhere that sympathetic magic was popular among all classes - anybody can put a wicker doll in a clay pot and huck it into a privy - and I recall something about... pre-battle magicians doing prayers and something about scorpions and the enemy's flag... but I've never been able to find any useful information about it.

So I guess what I'm really looking for is how did the ancient egpytians view magic? What position did magic users occupy in society? Were they like medieval witches, or court wizards, or honored priests... what implements did they use? Was there a standard set of items and tools and magic scrolls, etc.?

Er... I apologize if this qiestion isn't as well-spelled out as it ought to be, I'm not really sure what I want to know, just that I know very little and I'd like to devour every little scrap of information about it. Would love some suggested reading, or some direction toward indipendent research.

Thanks y'all!

On a side note, what are some of the noticeable conflicts in ideas between the Eastern and Western approach to warfare?

Off the top of my head I can think of Cannae, where Hannibal annihilated the Romans by surrounding them. Chinese ideas seem to suggest that it's best to leave an escape route open for the enemy; as they will be more focused on running away than fighting back.

I've heard the statement "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it?" Is that actually true?

Is history actually cyclical?

To what extent can a study of history be a predictor of current events?

Or, is history really just a chaotic jumble, and any patterns are just reflections of the human need for order - sort of like seeing shapes in clouds?