I was reading the post about The battle of Britain and aircraft production numbers came up. I was wondering how long it would take to train a fresh recruit to be a competent pilot, specifically in this theatre but any country/theatre of the war is of interest to me as well.

According to Wikipedia, England's population rose by 48% between 1540 and 1601, and by 27% between 1601 and 1651. Did food production increase drastically then? I know the Protestant Reformation and Catholic reaction were big events during those years, but people died as a result. So, what was the main cause?

I was talking to a friend about crime rates and those crime statistics stormfront members love to post. This quickly led to how the black population were pretty much lower class citizens until a generation ago and he asked me about the situation in Europe.

This made me realize I have no idea how the racial relations during that time period were in Europe and I'd really love to know. Especially during WW1 and duting WW2 outside the influence of Germany.

Popular fiction often depicts people remarking that "the war will be over soon" in 1864-1865, how widespread was this sentiment? Did the average Confederate soldier believe they still had a chance at victory? How aware of the overall situation (economically, strategically, militarily) would they have been? Additionally if there are any books you'd recommend about the later years of the war, I'd love to know. Thanks!

This is a version of events related to me anecdotally. Is it a historical fact of fiction?

Of course, we know it was colonists. But were the British authorities at the time fooled? Or was it pretty transparent?

What did the French eat before they had croissants? I'm researching French breakfasts in 1814. As far as I can see, Parisians preferred to breakfast in cafes where, as today, they were partial to a cafe au lait. But they didn't have croissants. They seemed to like a sort of bread roll/cake. I have found references to 'Bavarians' or 'bavaroise le sot riche en rit', but no one seems to be able to say what they actually were. Can anyone help me out here?

Did they favour a particular side? Did they sell weapons to either force? Did they exploit the divided nation in any way? Or just sit back, and watch the show?

I'm doing research for my thesis on an unrelated aspect of the American Revolution. Right now I'm trying to build up some general knowledge about the war and I read recently that the Highlanders fought for the British in North Carolina. This strikes me as odd that they would side with the British, after the British had been their enemies in Scotland and had so recently destroyed their way of life. I know that NC was a Loyalist stronghold but it still doesn't make sense to me.

I read somewhere that without the US intervening, the best allies could have got was a return to status quo. How true is this claim?

I just remember all the problems JFK had with his presidential run in 1960 with it and how during a rally in Protestant coal mining country he was asked about it.

Edit: Putting Kennedy aside, is the reason that he had a problem with being 'the Catholic candidate' because American's didn't like any foreign interference? I know for a long time Christmas was not 'allowed' to be a public holiday because it was considered to be too British a holiday. Does the same views apply to Catholics (I know Americans originally thought of the Italians and Irish as Catholic riffraff that would bring in 'foreign agitators' - to paraphrase J. Edgar Hoover)?

Hello, I have been looking to buy Sun Zi's The Art of War, but despite much research, I still don't know which translation to buy. From what I gather, the best versions out there are Roger T. Ames' and Victor H. Mair's, and I have been pretty much hesitating between these two for quite some time.

Do you have a preferred version? If so, which one? Why?

It seems as if their efforts are usually presented in the shadow of the Americans and British

Today, there's a certain style that's considered Classical Music and it's like Beethoven and all that. When Beethoven was composing, was he making music for the masses to appreciate or was it meant to be for some discerning elite?

I'm sure the fact that most people were working their bloody arms off during that age means that not that many people had time to listen to people play Beethoven but was the music of these composers seen as incredibly popular across all music listeners or just a few?

As a minor follow-up, were there any composers at all who weren't favoured by wealthy rulers but had appeal among the people? I wonder if we just ended up a few kings decided the canonical idea of sophisticated music for centuries to come when they could have been doing so on a whim.

I wonder what parts of the serie is based on a 'true story' (such at what came from his own book) and what is fiction.

I am wondering of how accurate are the movies in which some warriors are slaughtering enemies the one after the other, without getting hurt? Would someone with lots of practice and fighting skills manage to make his way through "safely"?

Second question: would an antique battle be a massive mess, or would there actually be some kind of order in it (meaning I'd not basically just try to kill everyone I'd see)

When the Finns suddenly switched sides and the average Finnish soldier was forced to fight the men who had been his ally just days prior, was there any sense of hesitation? Did many soldiers question the conflict and did some commanders/officers not want to conduct many offensive operations against their former friends?