It makes sense to script it as a scripted spectacle would draw more viewers than a potentially short or boring fight.

But why would the gladiators go along with the script if the script said they were going to die? Because of the thumb thing. They think they're going to go out, get injured, come back, get paid... But then the thumbs say that they die.

Well, do we have any evidence that the fights were "real" or even that any of them were "fake?" Figured this would be the place to ask.

The theory was largely that while firearms weren't all that effective in battle compared to highly trained soldiers with other weapons, firearms and ammunition were enormously expensive and required little training to use.

This meant that instead of having to train your populous with weapons that were easily reproducible, you could give your untrained levies firearms for war and then take them back again as they left the army.

The expense actually came as a plus as it meant that only a central government with the power to raise taxes could effectively wage war. This took power away from everyone but the central government as they didn't have the funds to wage war with firearms.

Cannons were doubly effective in this regard as they were both expensive, and they could be used to level previously near impenetrable castles of disobedient vassals, placing far more authority in the hands of the central government.

Is this a good theory?

In Three Kingdoms, there is a common, almost casual discussion of wiping out whole families. E.g., the downfall of the Ten Eunuchs also means that their whole clans are wiped out, etc.

Is this really what happened in Late Han China? (It seems like a Mongolian policy, so it doesn't seem impossible that Luo Guanzhong living in the Yaun dynasty might have imported it from his present, but it does seem pretty unlikely that it would have been inserted as a blatant anachronism.) If so, was this official, legal policy, or was it just a course of action habitually taken by powerful lords using their personal influence to execute rival families extrajudicially (even family members not accused of any crime)?

If this was official, legal policy, how far did it go? Was it only for political crimes, or would it apply to common criminality as well? I assume that having a common pickpocket in the family didn't justify killing everyone in the family -- did it? Would a person convicted of some non-political homicide (e.g., a man who kills his neighbor after repeated arguments over property disputes) take his family down with him?

known*

and why did the story/myth of possibly surviving attach to her?

edit: spelling, missing word

Okay so I've read a bit about WW1 and it seems that British diplomats had no idea what they were doing. At every turn they seemed to be writing checks they couldn't cash or immediately went out and made another agreement that broke the first one. The treaty with Italy and with the pan Arab revolt stick out in my mind. Did they think that they could smooth things out later? Did they just not care? Did the people in London not notice what their agents were doing? Did they not respect the people they were making treaties with and breaking them in the future wouldn't matter as long as they fought against the central powers? After the war were countries less likely to deal with the British Empire because of all the broken promises? Or do I have it entirely wrong at it was a success?

Hi everyone,

I'm currently finishing a thesis on the history of public relations in America, and I would like to put the sales number of one of my authors in context. Between 1928 and 1939, he sold 7200 copies of his book. Could anyone tell me if this could be considered a success ? Do you know the circulation figures of any authors in social sciences during that period ?

when did people start celebrating birthdays?

I believe that the imperial household retained use of the inner court for a couple of years and that the republican government took over the rest of the complex but it would be many years before an official body would curate the entire palace.

I can't easily find good accounts of the period between 1912 and 1933. Such a large structure in the middle of one of the largest cities in the world must have attracted quite a lot of attention and interest.

So:

1. What happened to the (presumably) massive staff?

2. Who maintained the palace complex?

3. How expensive was it to maintain?

4. Did anything valuable go 'missing'?

5. Were there any plans to take it over for other governmental functions?

6. Were there any plans - wholly or in parts - to sell it? Destroy it?

deleted

I'm reading "Britons" by Linda Colley right now, and just finished up a section about John Wilkes, the notorious radical and journalist. As Colley mentions, Wilkes' support for universal suffrage drew him the support of lawyers, tradesmen and other "would-be-gentlemen" - people who, because, of their rising fortunes, felt they deserved the full rights of British political citizenship.

Now, it's my understanding that at the time, the right to vote in Britain depended on the "forty shilling freehold," so hypothetically a lot of lawyers and professionals could vote.

But later on in the book, Colley mentions that the 1760's, the era in which Wilkes was most active, saw the first big movement by men of "movable property" who weren't part of the landed elite to obtain the franchise. To me, that sounds like a good chunk of those lawyers and professionals who supported Wilkes were excluded from the franchise. If that's the case, how did he get elected as MP?

Sorry if this is a long question or confusing question. I'm just curious if anyone can help me out.

TL;DR: What kinds of people/social classes could vote in 18th century Britain? And what kind of restrictions were placed on the franchise to ensure that only those classes could vote?

I've seen it asserted that, with the Beautitudes and "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me" and its other moral injunctions, early Christianity changed ethical norms about charity and providing for those who cannot provide for themselves, that Christian morality caused the end of acceptance for things like leaving babies deemed unfit in Roman refuse heaps as well as led to the creation of charity hospitals.

How true is this?

Two weeks ago was the 70th anniversary of the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane. So there were some articles about it in the media and one thing that always gets mentioned is how the massacre was perpetrated as retaliation for actions of the French resistance. I have heard of similar incidents on the Eastern Front, in Jugoslavia, Italy and Greece.

My question is: How effective was this strategy? Did it actually lead to a noticeable drop in partisan activity due to a reduced willingness to help from the population? Or did it cause a second effect of hate-filled citizens joining the ranks of the resistance?

Sometimes I get into these history moods and get lost in world history for days. I've been reading a lot on the US Civil War and World War I recently. I find it really interesting to see how similar battle tactics were in both wars. The US Civil War was a sort of stepping stone into more modern warfare, and World War I was was the full on transition out of Napoleonic Tactics.

I'm wondering how exactly battles changed over this span of about 150 years. I understand World War I started off using 19th century style of battle (wheeling and maneuvering lines of troops, cavalry, etc), but quickly adapted due to more advanced weapon technology and fell into trench warfare.

I guess what I'm asking is to compare / contrast a typical battlefield and battle strategy between the Napoleon Wars, US Civil War, World War I, and World War II. The differences between World War I and World War II seem huge to me, especially since the wars were only 20 years apart, so I'm trying to understand this better.

Thanks!

I know Hannibal changed the system of government to make the general public have more of a say, but how exactly did this system of government work?

I'm referring to the 1897 Zionist Congress in Basel.