Like a compare and contrast on all their writing styles like how they tell the story, themes, comments on predecessors.

I know money wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and people were starving. Did all that desperation help Hitler's rise to power?

Hey, title pretty much says it all. I've got to write a presentation about Gambling in 18th century england, how it affected the culture and what daily life revolving around gambling looked like. I've done some research on my own but I haven't had much luck finding proper sources on the matter. Are there any books or insight you could provide information on?

Sorry if this is inappropriate for the subreddit, if it is Feel free to direct me to the correct place.

thanks in advance!

Is it all the same just minus the ring part?

I'm about to start a research paper on the "final days of Nazi Germany" and I'm just looking for some basics sources to gather more information on what besides the atmosphere of propaganda and Nazi fanaticism caused this mentality to occur.

Thanks!

I've seen movies where a bunch of battered British citizens and soldiers sit around a radio waiting for news. In the movie, when the announcer says the United States has joined the war effort they cheer and look relieved. How accurate is that? Did we really make that much of a difference? Or is it just false drama thrown in by movie directors?

Also, was this strenght one of the causes of the early Ottoman and Timurid power?

Was it seen the same way most people nowadays see extremely abstract art ("my five-year-old son could have painted this")? Were the impressionists themselves regarded the same way people regard artists today (in the sense that some people see artists negatively, that they are kind of crazy)?

This is mentioned in the Bible 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.

Something about the hierarchy of things;

God -> Man -> Woman

How Men should not have long hair or their heads covered while praying but instead have their hair short and shown. Women should not have short hair while praying and instead have long hair.

While I do see the whole hierarchy thing being a product of his time, I am curious as to where he gets this idea of hairstyles from. Is it still practised today with any relevancy to Paul's writings? Was he influenced by his surrounding culture? Was it said by a prophet before him?

I only discovered this while studying his contributions to Christianity and this caught my eye. Also please tell me if I have asked the question incorrectly or if there is another subreddit that could help.

I mean the elements melt at very high temperatures that require special furnaces. What gave them the initial idea?

As for my understanding, prior to the industrial revolution society structures were completely different, where the community and the family took care of everything for the individual (for good and bad).
I.e., jobs, 'law enforcement', 'education', juridical system etc. The state/country/kingdom didn't really intervene on how you run your community.
So why did we (they) paid taxes to the government for? was it just as a protection service you pay today to criminals?

This is an argument that flares up sometimes that still causes rather heated debates. The crux of it being that the a much of wealth of modern former colonial nations, such as Britain or France, is based on the exploitation of what were at the time colonies in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, South America. Thus my question is:

1. how far back is it reasonable to trace wealth i.e. if an ancestor owned a lucrative sugar plantation in the Caribbean

2. Is the argument in any way historically valid if so how if not how so?

I took an African history class a few years back, and the TA was always upset when anyone referred to African societies as tribes. For the most part we discussed and wrote about Africa in the 19th century.

The TA said that tribe has a negative and eurocentric connotation, and she explained that it was hypocritical to label an African civilization as tribal but not any Western ones. I see her point, but I found it difficult to write about African societies without using the term. And isn't a tribe a community largely based on kinship ties or stratified and led by chiefs? - which describes in general a number of historic African communities.

Furthermore, I am studying in France at the moment, and a professor with whom I was discussing the Amerindians in Guyana also frowned on the term. He explained that in France it always bore the sense of a primitive civilization.

So, is it ever correct to use the term tribe? What about in other places or periods of history, like Gallic tribes, for instance? I'm wondering what the standard academic byline is on this.

When the English named New York State and renamed New Amsterdam, why did they name the whole territory New York rather than New Yorkshire, wouldn't that make more sense in British naming conventions?

18th or 19th century, American cities. Also how did the mode of commute differ with regard to status. Now the poor seem to live in the cities and the well-off live in the suburbs, was that the case back then?

Not sure if this is where I should put this, but I just thought I'd ask here anyway.