I watched a documentary about Shakespeare and one on his play "MacBeth". What peaked my curiosity wasn't even touched upon in these documentaries nor during my training in English literature. During the time of Shakespeare, what other playwrights were his competition? What methodologies did each use to "one up" the other? Did this competition contribute to how prolific the Bard was?

One of this guy's books has been suggested for a book club, specifically Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1999). I've been trying to determine whether Sutton's work is taken seriously or not, but haven't been able to find much.

What worries me are some of his other book titles (The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, How the Order Controls Education) as well as quotes like this: "There is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union."

I thought it was a hoax at first, but article after article I can't find one that contradicts that they were. For a final answer I decided to go to Reddit because I trust you guys.

Edit: Don't read my reply to /r/IshmaelTheJedi I don't know shit

Given the recent history of the area (I'm not asking about that Mods, I swear), Turkey seems to distinguish itself in the region as a predominately secular society- so much so that I see frequent marches in the streets to preserve the rights a secular society has given the country. Given Constantinople/Istanbul's religious important to their respective religions, it seems ironic that Turkey would emerge as the most secular nation in the region. When did this happen and how?

By "hazardous" here I mean, most least likely to survive the course of the war. Let's leave out support positions like cooks and clerks. Was it better to be assigned to a tank crew, than to infantry? Artillery? What would be my best chance of seeing combat, but also coming home?

I just returned from Rome, and I was wondering why there are so few gothic buildings in Italy.

Of course there is the famous Duomo di Milano, but other than that, there are just a few gothic buildings.

There is another question connected to this, which is - who started and brought the gothic architecture to other countries in the first place? Maybe Italy had bad relations with the starting country and therefore didn't want to adopt gothic style?

Hi guys, I'm actually doing a research about rape as a war crime during the bosnian war. It is quite easy to find testimonies from the victims, but what about (anonymous) interviews from serbian soldiers ?

Do you have any idea where I can find that kind of sources/documents/transcripts/interviews ?

I know many soldiers did not have a choice because they were drafted into whatever branch needed bodies, but did soldiers who enlisted normally lean towards the army because they would most likely get sent to western Europe or the Marines or Navy because they would most likely get sent to the Pacific?

Did Greek or Roman style heavy infantry ever catch on in the Middle East?

I always imagine Persian, Arab, and Turkish armies with comparatively lighter infantry supplemented with cavalry. Is this a misconception?

Hi.

When we think of the eastern bloc we tend to think of massive concrete structures that are utilitarian in form.

I was thinking about it today. Was this style common out of necessity (due to economic conditions) or as a reaction to Western style architecture (due to social reasons).

Thanks!

I'm reading Henry Kissinger's A World Restored right now. As the Allies are winding up the war, Kissinger says that Metternich views either Napoleon or the Bourbons as legitimate rulers of France, and while Metternich has preferences, either one would be an acceptable ruler after the war.

Metternich is an uber-conservative servant of the Hapsburgs, so I'm wondering why he would even consider Napoleon a legitimate claimant to the throne of France when the House of Bourbon still has claimants. How did Napoleon get legitimacy even though he was the result of a massive and unprecedented revolution?

I'm looking for a general history that covers military strategy, etc. but also one that places a lot of emphasis on the political/social dimensions of the conflict, especially in regards to the partisans.

I've read about a few German concentration camps in WWII and have a relative who was an American POW in Germany. As the Allies got closer to Germany towards the end of the war, the Germans moved POWs and people in at least some concentration camps further into Germany. This was at a time when Germany was struggling to keep fighting, food was scarce, POWs and people in concentration camps were already weak from hunger and the bitterly cold winter of 1945. I can kind of understand moving the POWs to prevent then from being liberated by the Allies and potentially coming back to fight Germany. But I don't understand the strategic advantage of moving starving people away from the Allies as the Allies got closer. Does anyone know why this was done?