I'm referring to the system of Old Hollywood whereby major stars would be associated with/contracted to major studios and do pictures exclusively, or pretty much exclusively for them. This system seemed to stop functioning and nearly killed the studios by the late 1960's and early 1970's. Why?

I vaguely recall something I read about a culture where people could take on the role of the opposite gender (men could take on spirtual roles usually reserved for women for example) if they lived as that gender. Am I misremembering, or did something like this exist?

In the Etruscan League for example, were the different cities all different tribes? I'm having a hard time understanding if they were all separate tribes/clans under a common language/culture, or if they were all the same?

I'm attempting to do a bunch of research in my spare time on the Italic tribes and basically everything Italy between 800 bc - 300 bc. The more I read the more fascinated I become. The wars, the intrigue, the drama, the myths and legends between the Romans, Etruscans, Samnites, Sabines, Umbrians, etc is so cool! I used to be focused on the late Republic/Early Empire, but these older, smaller, more tribal conflicts and cultures are drawing me in big time.

Anyway, if anyone can answer my original question that'd be killer. Thanks guys!

I have heard a lot of things regarding post wwii japanese economic reconstruction, the so called "japanese miracle". Everything from the plausible: severe protectionism of its industries, to the far fetched: prohibition of most of its citizens to travel for tourism abroad in order to keep that money in Japan, to the downright crazy: state-sanctioned (or tolerated) amphetamines for its workers. How much of it is true?

There was any substancial opposition? What about the internationalist parties, such as Communist Party?

Were the well-to-do of colonial North America, and the aristocracy across the Atlantic, really such voracious readers, or were libraries like this mostly for show/status? Do we know how much they did read?

On the Daily Show from Wednesday, May 13, Jon Stewart interviewed Reza Aslan. During the show he made the claim that both American slave owners and abolitionists used the same verses from the bible to prove their points of view? Is this true? What were the verses?

It seems to me that it was completely foolish for Italy to ally with Nazi Germany. What possible interest could Mussolini have in Hitler's irrational racial theories? Mussolini should have kept his country neutral and joined in at the last moment as the Americans did.

Yet, history tells me that he decided the opposite and went on to help the Nazis in wiping out the Jewish race.

Why?

I've heard that the French Resistance basically didn't do much until after the Allies began landing in Europe (I'm assuming D-Day but possibly also after the invasion of Italy) and I've also heard that they actively fought the German occupation throughout the war after France's capitulation. Which if these characterizations is closer to the truth?

Why not wine? Why not vodka? Why is beer such a big part of German culture?

Especially considering it was wiped out from the rest of North Africa.

So my friend and I read a lot of fantasy literature, and as such we end up debating weaponry, armor, and fighting styles, and their pros and cons. My initial question is whether or not a swordsman losing fingers during combat was common, or not. It seems to me that thats the point of a crossguard, and that any trained swordsman worth his weight in salt would know how to twist his wrist to catch a blade on the cross guarf and thus avoid such crippling blows. Is this accurate? Also, I'm not certain if asking a few more related questions in the same post is acceptable or not, so I'll just do it, and add different posts if necessary;

I'm under the impression that sword fighting by fully armored knights was usually done on horseback, and was less about meeting blades, and more about poking ones opponent in the weak spots of their armor? What is the validity of this statement? Also, was sword fighting on the ground more akin to grappling?

What kinds of swords woukd knights in armor use? Would they use longswords, or more of dueling rapiers?

Anyways, sorry for any weird inconsistencies, I'm on my phone, and my buddy texted me at work. The first thing I thought was to ask you guys. Thanks!

I feel as if my question was too vague. If it needs be, consider that i was born under a Roman Citizen, somewhere in the Italian Peninsula. Not too wealthy, not too poor. I may or may not own my own horse when i enlist, so i'd like to know what would happen if i did and if i didn't. Same goes for armour and weapons.

EDIT: I am specially interested in the post-Marian Reforms period of the Roman Army, but i would also like to know what would happen before that, if it's not a hassle.

When they became widespread in Western Europe in the early 1700s, or only during the military reforms of the 1800s?

And when did this emmigration begin?

Today's sentencing to death of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in a state that doesn't have the death penalty reminded me of something I heard years ago. It was that Lee Harvey Oswald would have to have been tried in Texas state court because there was no federal law that would make it a capital offense to assassinate the president. There was no federal prohibition against murder (though illegal everywhere) or against assassination. Is this true? The show I heard it on made this absence out to be a huge deal that was quickly rectified. But if it was such a big deal then why wasn't something similar done after the assassination of McKinley?

When was there no more "free land" or land that was very easy to acquire?

I know he model himself after Charlemagne and Caesar. Did he had any knowledge or any opinion on Genghis and his Mongol conquest?

EDIT: Forgot to mention: I'm talking about collaborators in Antwerpen of course, it would be weird if they were thought from all over Europe to be displayed in a Zoo.

Also *put