I'm assuming that because Europe had a higher population and more people that lived in cities, they'd have a larger variety of bacterial/viral diseases, but the opposite surely applies too.

Hello everyone!

I´m currently writing my masters in Translation studies and the topic is translation politics and its role in WWII Nazi propaganda posters in occupied Slovenia. I have already found quite a few books and articles on propaganda, translation politics, and Nazi history in general, but I struggle to find any information about who was actually doing these translations in Nazi occupied territories and what their guidelines were. I asked around in a few museums and archives here in Slovenia as well, but they could not help me. I was wondering whether anyone of you has any advice on which literature could be helpful (it can be either German, Slovenian or English). I would appreciate the help.

Thanks!

When Yugoslavia collapsed, the war (if I understood it well) was between nationalist movement. Even the Yugoslavia Republic became a way for Serbia to form a grand Serbia.

In this context, what happened to people believing in the communist ideal? The internationalism and the Yugoslavia union?

Where they any party/militant who weren't Serbian nationalist with red flag to look better? Or any army fighting for unification of Yugoslavia, or at least, establishing socialist country?

Thanks in advance for any answers!

Apologies for the really vague timeline, but I'm thinking of when Phillip of Spain married Queen Mary, we know a good chunk of the population wasn't too happy with a Spanish (and Catholic) prince consort, Catherine of Aragon writing in Latin to Prince Arthur because they couldn't speak any other common language, Emperors of China having concubines from different tributaries, and when Michael VIII sent his 2 daughters to marry Mongolian rulers to secure alliances. I've specified the Medieival/Elizabethan period since that's what popped into mind first (with the above examples all coming from roughly that period), but if there are any accounts from any other time period I'd be interested too.

Royal intermarriage throughout history was seemingly common to consolidate land and create alliances, but do we know how these princesses/princes felt when they were sent to a foreign country to marry someone they couldn't communicate with (or even disliked)? Did royalty prefer to marry vassals for this reason? How did people work out these cultural differences? Did they just avoid each other as much as possible? Was there any outright racism/racial tensions? Are there any accounts of public reactions to these marriages? Thanks!

This tidbit of history is interesting because how exactly would anyone know the day of a birth definitively? What was stopping parents from lying about the child's actual birthday in order to spare them the stigma of a "bad" day and give them a good day instead?

I also read that one birthday could pave your way into a Calmecac school even as a lower class. What was stopping parents from basically lying their way into a University?

So I'm working on a story surrounding the latin empire of Constantinople, and have long past the end of said empire in real life. However, I still want to be fairly realistic, so I humbly ask, how would the orthodox Christians of the Balkans and anatolia be treated by a crusading army of mostly frenchmen? Did any of the crusader states last enough with enough internal stability to really have a pattern?

On the flip side, I've had the Empire take on much of who came before, the Eastern Roman Empire. Much of their administration is based on non-heritary governors, and the monarchy has enough personal lnd to fund a permanent navy based in greece. So them taking on actions based on the byzantine empire might make sense as well.

I especially want to know what might be done with the patriarchs of constantinople and Antioch respectively; the former being the capital of course, and the latter being a recent conquest with mongol help.

I'm not surprised that things like grief, trauma, and depression were worse-understood before. I'm talking about the specific trope of someone having to convalesce in bed (sometimes even remaining comatose or catatonic) for weeks or even months following a seriously upsetting event.

That sort of thing doesn't seem to happen anymore. Did it ever? And if it didn't, why do books of the time seem to take for granted that readers will accept it as normal?

This might be two questions, but I remember in the 80s and even before, there was a certain element of fanatical fear about subliminal messages in advertising and music. When I was growing up, my friends told me that their parents told them to never listen to certain music, because if you heard it played backwards there were subliminal messages that would tell you to do horrible things.

My question is, why would anyone think this? Why would someone think that briefly flashing words during a TV advertisement, TV show or in a movie would have any effect whatsoever on influencing people to do anything at all, other than think that was kindof strange - if they even noticed it? Why would anyone think that a song, even if played backwards with different speech than if played forwards, would have any effect on anyone, other than again, someone going, "well, that's kinda odd..."

Did anyone ever seriously believe subliminal messaging worked?

I hope this doesn't wind up getting taken down, but I figured I might as well ask here to get some answers if possible.. Rather recently I have met someone who claims that the genocides of the Native population has claimed 100 million lives, and I wish to know if this is accurate or not. From my own bits of knowledge about history, and from some Googling I did on my own, the Trail of Tears, one of the largest Native genocides in history, was only 60,000 deaths. The only place I could find the number 100 million in relation to Native Americans is the estimated number of deaths caused by the Columbian Exchange. If anyone could help shed some light on where this person may be coming from, I'd appreciate it.

I have always seen that during the best years of her piracy life, she was estimated to have under her control between 50000 and 80000 soldiers, but I have seen a lot of different info about the ships they had. Some sources say 400, wereas others estimate them to be over 2000 ships. Which are the true numbers behind it?

And also, I'm quite interested to know about her post-piracy life. You don't find that often such a succesful pirate that manages to get the amnesty and retire in peace. I've read from various sources that after she retired, she managed to open a gambling house in Guangdong, while others say that was in Macau.

Also, some sources say that she also participated trading opium, but I haven't managed to find any records or evidences about that gambling house or about her opium trade activity, so I was wondering if someone could give me some evidence about her true post-piracy life, to know if the gambling house and the opium trade was fictional or not.

Thanks for your time and for reading until the end, and hope that someone can clarify those details about this interesting historial character.

I was watching a documentary on the Templars where one of the talking heads mentioned that crusaders would regularly hack the bodies of the dead to pieces, on account of so many people swallowing some of their coins when under siege. It was said to be common practice after taking a city or castle, but this seems hard to believe.

Would people under siege actually eat their coins to keep them out of the hands of the enemy? And, if so, did the victorious enemy then hack their bodies apart to claim the grisly loot?

This may be an ignorant post and I'm not condoning slavery at all... but how did native Americans avoid slavery? Were they just too good of fighters to try to keep under control?

I've done some research on why former Yugoslavia spiraled into civil war, in addition to having Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian friends giving me different sides of the story. Is it because of religion? Ethnic differences? Tito's death? Territory?

My quick research suggests the early 1700s, but I feel like it must be further back from that.

Not talking about the actor, of course. I'm also aware of previous topics critically discussing Holland's other books.

In short, Holland essentially claims that most of our current values, including the notion of human rights, human dignity, secularism and pity are the result of originally Christian ideals that developed from the bible. How accurate do you consider this claim to be?

He presumably does not deny that other cultures have developed the concept of "rights" in the past, but he emphasises the major role Christianity played in them spreading worldwide. For example, Holland argues that "pity" was considered mostly foreign in pre-Christian antiquity such as ancient Greece and Rome. He makes similar claims for concepts like equality, loving thy neighbor etc. Furthermore, Holland argues that the concept of separation of church and state was foreign to religions such as Islam or Hinduism, which originally weren't really religions in the modern understanding to begin with, but more like general models of thought that covered all areas of politics and society.

I know the question is broad but would be grateful for any response!

Because of the recent comparisons of the Taliban takeover of Kabul to the Fall of Saigon, I've been trying to understand what everyday life was like after the Vietcong won the war. There seems to be a lot of resources on what life during the war but not after.