Looking at maps of the Holy Roman Empire, the states of Northern Italy like Savoy, Milan, Genoa, Florence, Siena, etc. are almost always included, but by the time of the Treaty of Westphalia, the only part that's ever included is Savoy Proper. I can find very little on this. Did the duchies and city-states of Italy ever declare independence, like the United Provinces and the Swiss Confederacy? Or was there just a gradual acceptance that Imperial jurisdiction no longer applied?

I assume they did mostly farming? Did each family have their own farm or did the village work on one big farm together. What was the average size of the land they farmed on?

It seems like I'm seeing a lot more denial and/or revisionism about this subject, and not just from the Japanese right. Is this just more denial by nationalists and their sympathizers, is it being exaggerated beyond its true scope, or what?

I have not read anything mentioning what happened to life and home insurance companies following the bombing of Hiroshima. What I know from photographs is that the city recovered very quickly and was back on its feet within 5 years or so. Did insurance offices contribute to the rapid rebuilding of the city? Did any of the victims receive monetary compensation or was it a total loss?

Is this even true? What are some other unusual practices the ancients used to deal with death?

I realized that Easter and Passover are the same word in many languages, share several symbolic meanings, and are always around the same date. How are the two holidays linked? Do they both stem from Pagan origins?

I've noticed that modern-day cocked hats (i.e. ones worn by re-enactors of earlier time periods) have their brim folds fixed into position by means of narrow twill tape or cord that run through the hat and brim, and are tied off inside, leaving those parallel lines of tape on the outside. Is this the original method of securing the brim, or is that just a re-enactor thing? Or is it more of a military thing, and the owners of fancier, more gently-rolled tricorns would have worn hats that were steam-shaped somehow? I mostly do Native living history, so I guess I never thought too much about cocked hats before.

Obviously in these conflicts there wasn't the same density of troops per metre of front as on the Western front of WWI. Did this make the battles more fluid or movement-based than those in the west, or did the power of defensive fire outweigh the increased room to manoeuvre? During the intervention of 1918 - 1920, did the allies apply the same tactics used during the 'Hundred Days' offensive at the end of WWI?

Were they a specific ethnic or religious group? When Pol Pot wanted to cleanse the society, what did this mean exactly? How was it an attempt to restore Cambodia to an agrarian society? I can't wrap my head around any of these ideas. It just seems like senseless violence. The Holocaust makes more sense to me, even though it is equally horrible, because the target seems clearer: remove undesirables from society.

So, in essence who were the undesirables of Cambodian society, and why did they need to be exterminated?

Also, how did the Oranienbaum pocket hold out for the duration of the siege when the Germans had smashed all other opposition on their way north?

I tried looking into it online and all it really says is that they exterminated religious groups and had an idealized "master race" in mind, but I can't quite find out what specific type of people(s) they were trying to socially retain. Akin to how Adolf desired a nation of fair skinned, blonde hair, blue-eyed individuals, did the Khmer Rouge pine for the prevalence of a certain race or group of people(s)?

At one point in time, the Parliament was dominated by the nobility but nowadays it's dominated by the "common man" (though a cynic may say it hasn't changed at all).

My question, specifically, is basically when did it become OK for someone who wasn't born to noble blood to hold actual political power?

Was interracism at play here or were there other factors?

Working on a project and thought to ask you wonderful people <3

Sorry if this is a loaded or too vague question, I'll try to be more specific:

I was watching Amadeus yesterday ( I know, not Renaissance, but please bear with me) and kept noticing how Mozart was always broke, but he and his wife seemed to always wear super nice clothing! Yes I know this is a movie, but I have learned there to be some truth to them spending frivolously, which I imagine included clothing since they hung around the upper crust of society so much.

Anyways, it got me thinking how much those fancy silk dresses and hats with ridiculous feathers would actually cost today. I know buying replica costumes in today's age would easily run into the hundreds of dollars...did they cost hundreds of dollars (or whatever currency was used) back then, or were they cheaper by today's standards?

I imagine they would still be expensive, since the materials used would not be synthetics (right?) and you're paying for people to hand stitch things and hand dye, instead of using machines...but maybe I'm wrong?

I will edit this to be more specific if it needs to be. I was having a bit of trouble on the phrasing...please let me know if this is too confusing! You guys here at Ask Historians have always been so nice and informative and I am really curious about this topic!

EDIT: can't spell to save my life, sorry :)