you know, the titanic figures, such as Aristotle, Plato, the Socratic Dialogues, St Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Voltaire, Kant, Hegel...

...and if access was not legal but rather easy regardless, how did that system work? I remember the thread about how Western pop music found its way into the Soviet bloc, and if the purveyors were prosecuted they would be prosecuted under the don't-invest-and-make-a-profit type laws...

Didn't he have to deal with any Democratic movement, censor people and ideas, use his power to get rid of any adversaries? Edit: I'm genuinely trying to have a balanced, fact based, historical view on his "dictatorship" . I've been to Singapore and think it really is an amazing feat how the country is well organized (compared to it's neighbors) and if it was really a benevolent dictatorship maybe the world has something to learn from him.

I feel like somebody must have felt some qualms about what was happening overseas.

Do I just open the canopy and jump out? Is my parachute always strapped to my back during flights or do I have to put it on?

In a stroke of random, nostalgic curiosity, my mother remembered her childhood growing up in New York City. She remembered when she was in elementary school (P.S. 125), that the cast of the show "That's my Mama" visited. The local newspaper pulled her out of the audience to take a picture of her and the rest of the cast. She remembers that she saw herself in the local newspaper, but does not remember what newspaper's name was. She knows that it was around 1974 when this happened. Do you redditors happen to know if 1) there are archives for NYC local newspapers and 2) if they go this far back?

Please help, it would make my mum so happy (: !

Basically the title. What was the reaction, how did it affect them? Was there ever any attempt, serious or otherwise by the early emperors to have those rulers swear fealty to the Emperor? Etc.

By historic day, I mean, for example, the before and after of World War II, the reaction of the entry of the US in WW2, or the Vietnam War. I've read some of the Pittsburgh Press, and it's amazing how they viewed and reported these events.

I've recently been looking at several other revolutions, such as the French and Russian revolution, and while they were initially successful, as in the power of the previous ruler was removed, both really just eventually put another dictator into power, going against the purpose of the rebellion. This isn't really the case with the American Revolution, since the colonists were able to create a stable form of government which mostly aligned with their beliefs during the revolution. Why is this?

Note, I mean ideologically, not militarily. And didn't notice the typo in the title, sorry.

Aside from the famous Turkish baths, in various historical books I've read, I've seen public baths referenced in the Middle East prior to the Ottomans, and even in Islamic parts of India.

From personal experience, I've never seen one in Pakistan, but apparently they used to be attachments to many old mosques (which today might have an area for doing the ritual ablution, but nothing something worthy of the name public bath). Either the mosques were expanded into the bath area or the baths were knocked down.

What was the cause of their apparent decrease in popularity? Was it the introduction of running water? Because, at least in Pakistan, it seems that for many people, the closure of public baths preceded reliable household running water.

I just read that Japan was willing to surrender in July on the condition that Emperor Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal, but Truman declined and the bombs were dropped...essentially making Truman evil. Given the amount of lives destroyed with the bombs, how accurate is this claim? Not trying Hirohito as a War Criminal to save 150,000 lives seems like a pretty fair trade-off.

I read in ''flight of the intruder'' that they carried several thousand dollars worth of gold to barter or bride with,is that true?

Did they recieve a different treatment or were they considered part of the french forces?

So as far as I understand, or what is commonly understood, is that part of the reasons Jews were well off in Europe during much of history is because Christians were not allowed to lend money to other Christians, where the Jews inserted themselves as money lenders. My question is how did we reach the point where nowadays it's common for anybody to be part of the banking/lending profession?

With an adjustment of inflation, how much would a pence, or a shilling, or a pound be worth in the British money of two hundred years ago? How much would 1 £ be? How much would 10£ be? How much would 100£ or 1000£ be? How much would 30 000 £ be? How much would a million dollars in today's $ be in Napoleonic Britain?

How can we accurately make these equivalents?