With regard to the 20 year rule, of course.

It may not be western music, I'm not entirely sure. The point is though, I know a lot of global music does not rely on specific pitches, rather it's the interval that's important. In modern orchestral music though, everyone is tuned relative to i believe the piano's A3 key. While it's not always 440Hz, that's the intent.

When did they first use something like that? What was it? Is there a museum or something that has a 440hz tuning fork or similar like the metal meter bar?

Wikipedia says that there is a general consensus among historians that he existed, and so I was curious as to why this was so. What is the evidence for his existence? Other than the bible, that is.

I also wanted to know what historians thought about the bible and it's historical validity. Thanks.

How would Roman citizens have viewed Egyptians, or Syrians, or Palestinians or Anatolians? I ask these specifically because there exists a pretty deep seated rift between the Middle Eastern peoples and the West today, and frankly, that's all I have ever known. But towards the latter end of the Roman Empire, these lands had been a part of the Roman State for centuries. Rome even had an Arab Emperor at one point. So essentially, did Roman citizens view Egyptians and such as fellow Romans and equals, in the way citizens in a modern nation state do (in theory), or was there a degree of dissent towards accepting these peoples as 'true' Romans, and was there a marked difference between the regular civilians and elite in this regard?

That question in the title is a little simplistic and and pithy, but I'll expand on it:

Would a poor sheep herder in Gaul know the name of his emperor? Would he be able to list all the other Roman provinces? Would a farmer in Sicily be able to tell you where wars were being fought at any given time? Would a blacksmith in Syria know that Hadrian built a giant wall across Britannia? Could a kid in the city of Rome itself draw you a map of the empire?

When we learn about basic history of the Roman republic/empire, it's nearly all about the emperors, wars, rebellions, assassinations, land acquisition, and generally 'macro' level political dealings. That's understandable, since it lets you later contextualize the finer details. But I wonder, for all we know about it in hindsight, what the people of the empire actually knew, as it was happening.

(Hopefully this hasn't been answered 100 times before! I searched for similar queries and didn't find any).

Thanks!

Native American civilizations were drastically weakened by European diseases like smallpox that they had previously zero exposure to. Was there much of this going on in the other direction?

Did Christian mercenary companies every fight for Muslim rulers? Did Muslim companies ever fight for Christians?

Was it seen as shameful to fight for profit? Were mercenaries better-armed and better-trained than noble men-at-arms?

In my Population Statistics class we learned that Japan, Italy, and Germany have the three oldest populations (A lot of old people, not as many young people, and declining populations). Does this have anything to do with either World War Two or its aftermath, or is this just a coincidence?

Looking at naturist brochures and a question that is asked over and over is "What do I do if the little comrade stands up"

So I wanted to find out what they used to do with the problem. Maybe there is some wisdom there.

Im working on a project trying find historical examples of when the Speaker of the House and President of the United States were members of opposing parties, but still found common ground between party lines and worked together for compromise. Can anyone give me an example or quotes from either side expressing the importance of working together?

When music was first discovered or invented or whatever, Am would have been the first scale, because the notes are: A, B, C, D, E, F, G. So when did people start thinking of Am's relative major, C as the "main scale" that music was centered around?

HEMA stands for Historical European Martial Arts, as seen in /r/wma

Hi,

The title of this question is a bit weird but I will elaborate here.

So, I just read The Last Manchu and I have a question about it. Near the end of the book, while he was being brainwased by the communists, it seemed like he was treated very well. For example with the treasure he had hidden which he, eventually, turned in. Later it turns out that the thought center boss guy already knew about it because other's snitched on Pu Yi and the boss guy probably also had common sense.

I don't know much about communism in the Soviet Union, but it seems that breathing in the wrong direction would already get you purged.

So, now my question. Is there a reason why Pu Yi was treated so well? Were other's also treated this well and given so many chances to change?

The obvious answer would be that he was an emperor so he got treated better because they had a plan for him. But in the end they actually used his brother as an official for the Manchu people.

One of the things I learned from the book is that the Chinese communists were pretty swell dudes, is this correct?

Thanks

I mean this in the sense of something comparable to the Manhattan Project or the development of the V-2 rockets. Cheers.

How does a densely populated, extremely old city become modern? By that I mean how does the city build roads suitable for cars, create a modern waste disposal system, lay down eletric lines, and so on.

Do these decisions have to be made at the governmen level, or can they happen organically?

Who loses out? Are the poor typically displaced during this process?

Obviously this is a big question, so I'd be interested in hearing about specific cities you are an expert in.

Why did the Germans not use poison gas against the Russian army, given that they regarded the Russians as subhuman, especially during the great retreat from 1943 onwards? Why did the USA not simply bomb Iwo Jima with poison gas which would have gone into the deep tunnel system and therefore have saved hundreds of America lives.

In his biography of Borges, Edwin Williamson notes that no guns were used in combat by either side during the Battle of Junín in 1824. Was this common in wars of this era, and what was the reason?

Edwin Williamson, Borges: A Life (2004) pp 3-4