I was reading through wikipedia a bit, and as I can see he wasn't a prince at all, at least not what I imagine a prince is: son of a king or heir to the throne or ruler of some land. The closest is that he was a second cousin of Duke of Savoy.

Yet (again through wiki article) it seems as though all his contemporaries reffered to him as "Prince"

At best I can figure out, just him being Savoyan's royal family cousin was enough for him to be Prince. Was it common then? Did the title then had any meaning?

Title explains, THANK YOU!!

Do you guys have any stories of slaves killing there slave owners?

My family predominantly descends from ancestors who were originally from Ireland, before immigrating to Australia in the mid-1850s. Documented record shows they were illiterate, as were most Irish Catholics since the United Kingdom's Acts of Settlement 1801 denied them an education, amongst many other cruel restrictions on their liberties that no doubt contributed greatly to the tragedy of the Great Famine, but also the worldwide expanse of the Irish Diaspora.

But prior to these restrictions in Ireland, and even in other parts of the UK, Europe and America, what was the level of education like for the poor or working classes? In simpler terms, just how poor did they have to be to have not received an education? Certainly some evidence shows that even lower working class children had a very basic education or at least literacy, in other parts of the world, whereas the same level of working class in Ireland did not.

And by ancient i mean around 1500 years ago. since slaves came from different cultures and ethnicities you couldn't tell a slave from a free man just by appearance alone (I speculate). was there a way that someone could recognize a slave just by appearance?

also how come they didn't just run away? surely they weren't kept in shackles and chains all the time?

Also, were things different for slaves from region to region? i mean, was it different in Rome that in the Arabian peninsula for example? ie: in regards to the questions above.

As opposed to past eras where primary sources are hard to come by, will the internet be seen as "too much of a good thing"? Or will future historians turn to hard copies, because of their permanence?

Lately, due to Leo DiCaprio's Gatsby, there has been an influx of 1920's stuff around. Recently ANOTHER 1920's-style club opened, and, of course, it fits the glitz & glamor mold of the previous clubs/lounges.

But, is this "New York/Chicago" style truly indicative of the real 1920's?

I'm wondering if the 1920's have become the quintessential example of "print the legend." My 21 year old cousin says that she truly believes she was made to be born in the that time period. But, is that thinking all based on myth? Wouldn't she be horrified at what 99% of the country was experiencing in the 1920's?

So, reddit historians, what is the truth on this decade? Is it all rowdy burlesque halls, and shimmery dresses? Or, have we created an over-idealized vision of a very small part of life in that period?

Did they have cranes on boats to lower them to boats/barges?

Happily, not planning on dying soon and to clarify I'm not ruling out dipping my toe in fiction/drama.

But the extent of the Roman primary sources on its history, politics and lifestyle is so massive, I'd like some exposure to it, but I'm never going to get across much of it.

Open minded as to what you'd recommend, but would very much like to come away with a sense of Rome the society, rather than perhaps just a procession of great figures (but again, not to exclude any "must reads").

What was the age of majority in United states in 1900 ? For women and for men ? I don't ask the age of consentement

Alright, so Senior year history class was boring and I did not pay attention when we took this. All I know is that Mao Zedong was fighting for a communist way of life in China(?), and there was a lot of propaganda in the form of posters and statues etc. What I mainly want to know is if this was a generally positive and beneficial movement in China, or whether it was just very screwed up like what we hear now in North Korea, and in what ways was it positive/negative? Were the people provided with their needs? Were they happy? Or was it all just a big fad in disguise?

Thanks in advance!

I understand they had an inferior navy and needed air dominance in order to conquer the British Navy so they could stage a ground invasion of Britain lest their ships get destroyed by the RAF but isn't the channel as little as 22 miles wide? Couldn't it be crossed in just a few hours? Why couldn't they just invade on a particularly stormy night or in particularly foggy weather when the RAF would be unable to find targets, nullifying their air advantage?

I presume the entirety of Britain wasn't encircled by British ships and that German forces could find a point to sneak through if necessary, or attack in great force through one area perhaps. I know their navy was considered inferior but was it so weak they couldn't take and hold a particular shipping channel for as little as a day to get a significant landing force into Britain in the same way that D-Day did for France?

I understand an amphibious invasion is quite difficult against superior air and naval power by why was crossing such a small sea seemingly an insurmountable obstacle when conquering thousands of kilometers of Russia against millions of men and fighting a war in North Africa were seen as achievable goals by comparison?

Specificly，I want to learn about the entire history from Japan beginning to connect with chinese Tang dynasty to now.Additonally，I want you to answer it in detail instead of just some specific years and names of those important event.

Does it have anything to do with the British accent mixed with slang of some sort?

I have noticed many ww1 battle reports note how many artillery pieces were captured, sometimes quite large numbers. Did the capturing force then get to use these pieces from then on, or were they not compatible and more of a trophy than an actual military benefit?