From what I understand, some of the important factors were Dixiecrats finally becoming Republicans, the Contract with America, and inefficiency during Clinton's first years, but it doesn't seem like Clinton did anything that unpopular to begin his Presidency. So why exactly did his party get crushed?

I was watching Total War: Attila and the barbarians fight in formations like the civilized factions; historically speaking did they have organized formations like the Romans or did they fight in disorganized horde? Or was it somewhere in between?

Obviously the rigging of ships requires lots of knots of several varieties, but at any given time did a sailor have to know 10+ knots? More? Or was rigging a specialized skill resulting in some sailors knowing many knots but others only having to know a few?

This might sound a bit confusing first, but I try to elaborate. "King" and "emperor" are both European concepts, while the Japanese and Thai of course have their own words for their respective monarchs. Why the Europeans decided to call the Japanese (and Chinese) monarch "emperor", but the Thai one a "king"? When did Europeans start to describe these monarchs with these terms, or when did these become "standard" terms?

This is a serious question. I was just thinking that the other day. Thank you!

As times changed, were more folks excited for death or mercy? Were crowds there to see two guys beat the hell out of each other (like today's UFC/WWE) or were they there to see death?

This idea was proven to be very wrong once the war actually started and unescorted bombers started getting shredded by fighters, but was very prevalent before the war.

If so, what was their reaction?

Title edit: in the 50s and 60s

What did they classify as (today they are "white" but was it the same back then)? Could they vote if they were citizens? Where they allowed to marry "white" people usually? What about jobs and housing?

I'm specifically looking for the daily aspects of the sergeant brothers of the hospitallers during both war and when they weren't fighting, but any information about the hospitallers during this point in history would help. Anything you'd be able to point me to; books, websites, or organizations would be much appreciated.

I can't say much about historical materialism I think the question is fairly simple. Among laymen it seems to get a lot of respect but among historians it seems to be viewed as a something that contributed to historical analysis but is something we've moved past.

on the French Revolution in particular I have some writings from Marx that I think work to show what I'm asking about.

The revolution of 1789 (at least in Europe) had as its prototype only the [English] revolution of 1648; the revolution of 1648 only the revolt of the Netherlands against Spain. Both revolutions were a century in advance of their prototypes not only in time but also in content.

In both revolutions the bourgeoisie was the class that really headed the movement. The proletariat and the non-bourgeois strata of the middle class had either not yet any interests separate from those of the bourgeoisie or they did not constitute independent classes or class sub-divisions. Therefore, where they opposed the bourgeoisie, as they did in France in 1793 and 1794, they fought only for the attainment of the aims of the bourgeoisie, even if not in the manner of the bourgeoisie. All French terrorism was nothing but a plebeian way of dealing with the enemies of the bourgeoisie, absolutism, feudalism and philistinism.

The revolutions of 1648 and 1789 were not English and French revolutions, they were revolutions of a European type. They did not represent the victory of a particular class of society over the old political order; they proclaimed the political order of the new European society. The bourgeoisie was victorious in these revolutions, but the victory of the bourgeoisie was at the same time the victory of a new social order, the victory of bourgeois ownership over feudal ownership, of nationality over provincialism, of competition over the guild, of the division of land over primogeniture, of the rule of the landowner over the domination of the owner by the land, of enlightenment over superstition, of the family over the family name, of industry over heroic idleness, of bourgeois law over medieval privileges.

I'm aware that marx wasn't the first or only one to present this type of history but I thought these writings showed what I was talking about

Its a neat explanation of the French revolution that gives a cause for its happening that is easy to wrap my head around and seems to make sense. Which is why I can't help being so suspicious about it. How is this "class conflict" version of history viewed when applied to the French Revolution? The three estates make it especially easy to look at it this way.

Was it pride, naivete, or perhaps maybe even intoxication?

The question is pretty simple. With the rest of Scandinavia falling to the Nazis, with Finland fighting through the war, how did Sweden maintain its neutrality during the conflict? The only other neutral nations were Switzerland, Spain, and Portugal. And the latter two were neutral in name only. I've always wondered how the Swedes did it, while maintaining a decent sized Navy and Air Force. Thanks for the help guys.

Why call it "The Washington Post" when it could be called "The Washington News" or "The Washington Daily."

To clarify I'm looking for the origins of such (in my opinion) strange names for newspapers and if it had to do with the time period they were formed or if there is a meaning that I am missing out on.