From my understanding in most parts of the world literacy was something only nobles and a few special educated exceptions possessed until just recently. I can imagine not being able to read or write would make people less proficient at their languages. Is there any information on this? Is there any evidence for this? How was language use different for people who were illiterate.

I'd imagine there would still be webs of light, but much dimmer.

I've been interested in studying organized crime, mainly pertaining to Italian-Americans, and am hoping to find some book(s) on the topic.

There was one point in the 20th century where the 1 USD = 1 Php. Now, it's usually 1 USD = 40s Php. In 2009, over 50% of the working populace made <$2 a day. Correct me if you must.

Ive been quite curious to know what the plans were on the Asian front as most analysis on WW3 During the cold war take place in Europe.

The Asian Front would have been very important considering a large communist China and the slightly more Vulnerable Eastern side of Russia.

What was Japan, Korea the Philippines or any other asian "ally" supposed to do during a predicted war?

I find it odd that, despite China's historically massive lead over Europe n just about every matter of science, technology, invention, etc., that they continued to believe in a flat Earth up until the early modern period, long, long after educated Europeans knew otherwise.

Why didn't anyone in China realize the Earth was round?

How were gladiators, and any other form of gladiators, those who put life and limb on the line for spectacle of the people, treated after they retired? While many died when they lost, there has to be some who retired. How where they taken care of? What did they become?

How did life change for the general populous, or what other societal changes occurred because of the new religious reform?

It would be awesome if I could get the names of the airfields captured by the Soviet Union to Bomb Berlin. Other than that any other battle is good and can be on either the Pacific, African, or European front. (first post here. hope i did ok)

Clarification: by "Westerner," I mean the broader, West Bloc, NATOish west. I'm not from any part of Germany.

Was there any hostility?

Did they see one another as sides of the same coin?

Were citizens allowed to freely move and relocate between the two empires?

what are the types of Amerindians drink

Did the South continue to view slavery in a positive light after abolition? Did they defend slavery that still existed in other countries (i.e. Latin America)? Was there ever a movement (even a fringe movement) to bring it back, or did Southerners accept that it was gone for good?

I know the Torah claims the Jews descend from a single patriarch Abraham (b. ~1800 B.C.E. according to the literal reading of the Torah), and formed a nation upon the Exodus from Egypt and the Revelation at Sinai (~1300 B.C.E.). According to scientific evidence- archaelogical, documentary, or other (maybe even contemporary verifiable accounts from other sources)- what is the earliest time and place that we definitely know they existed? And in what form- as a nation, religion, ethnicity or other.

I'm reading What Paul Meant by Garry Wills and I had some questions about Wills' version of the death of Paul. Although Wills is a historian, and his presentation of Paul's teachings and message matches the "New Perspective of Paul" (I'm reading John Gager's Reinventing Paul as well), the book is far from a scholarly work (no citations apart from the bible and other ancient texts), and I was curious to see how credible some of the claims he makes are. Wills dismisses much of the narrative in Acts and rejects the Christian tradition that Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified. Instead, he argues that:

1. Paul was not a Roman citizen. Paul never claims to be a Roman citizen in any of his epistles. Paul DOES describe being whipped three times by the Romans and five times by Jews (2 Cor 11:24-25), despite it being against the law to flog a Roman citizen.

2. Paul did not go from Jerusalem to Rome as a prisoner. Paul was never arrested in Jerusalem; not being a Roman citizen, he would not have the right to trial in Rome. Instead, following the failure of his trip to Jerusalem with the collection, Paul went to Rome to prepare for his mission to Spain as mentioned in Rom 15:28.

3. Paul carries out his mission to Spain. This is based on Clement of Rome's letter, which Wills quotes as saying "that Paul taught 'all the world' after 'he had reached the farthest term of the West," i.e. Spain (pg. 168).

4. Paul and Peter were called again to Rome to resolve the dispute between Jewish and Gentile Brothers Both Clement and Ignatius of Antioch refer to Peter and Paul as "emissaries" on their final mission to Rome. In Rome, conflict had broken out between Jewish Brothers returning from their six-year exile under Emperor Claudius and the now substantially larger Gentile Brother community which had been able to remain; Peter and Paul went as emissaries to the Gentile Brothers.

5. The Gentile Brothers, along with Peter and Paul, were betrayed by the Jewish Brothers to Nero Tacitus in his Annals mentions that after the fire of 64 ce, the "open practitioners" (i.e. the Jewish Brothers) of Christianity informed on "a vast multitude" (i.e. the Gentile Brothers). Peter and Paul, although Jewish Brothers, stood with the Gentiles as their emissaries and were executed. This is corroborated by 1 Clement 4-5, which notes that Peter and Paul achieved their martyrdom from "rivalrous grudges." The embarrassment and pain of Brothers betraying Brothers explains why Luke invented the story of Paul's arrest and does not mention his execution.

6. Peter and Paul were not crucified and beheaded, but were gruesomely executed by immolation or by wild dogs Tacitus notes that the persecuted Brothers were subjected to "the most original forms of execution" as a form of public amusement including being sewn in a sack and mauled by wild dogs or covered in pitch and set on fire. Crucifixion was a common method of execution, in no way an "original" punishment, and Paul, not being a Roman citizen, would not have been beheaded. The grisly nature of their execution may also explain Luke's hesitation to record it.

How solid is Wills' account? How much of is credible? Or is most of the narrative embellishment and unwarranted speculation for the sake of a compelling story? Please feel free to address any or all of the points above. Thanks a bunch!

One thing the show was amusing is the Bastards, why would Kings go around having intercourse with mistress, why not do the Islamic and Chinese way and get yourself a concubine. Game of Thrones is based on England and Scotland which had Royal Bastards.

I mean, there is so many natural disasters there, so why would you want to live there? Did/does Tokyo have like, good fishing spots or something useful since people decided to built a city there?