What I mean by this is were all the infantry divisions the same, and were all the tank divisions the same, or was it more hoi4 AI where they have like 10 infantry templates and 5 tanks

Obviously, very few people were literate in Nero's Rome and it was a long way until the printing press was to be invented. So what did a bookstore in the Ancient Rome look like? What kind of selection was there and where did it come from? Who was transcribing the books? How affordable was an average book? Was it similar to today's situation when most books that come out are quickly forgotten? What kind of clientele visited such stores?

Is there any historical evidence about Apostles, Jesus Bible miracles etc?

I have been reading the odyssey and it struck me how often wives and daughters bathe male guests and rub them with oil. One of Nestor's daughters bathes Telemachus and Helen says she bathes Odysseus. There are definitely more examples in the classics that I cant think of off the top of my head.

Would this have been based on a real tradition? Would young noble women have to bathe strange men and rub them down? And when did this practice go out of date?

The Wikipedia article details how Galicia became part of these other kingdoms but it leaves me confused on how a "kingdom" can be part of a greater kingdom. Normally I thought that with feudalism a kingdom would be downgraded to a duchy or county or something like that. Was the case of Galicia maybe a personal union thing?

This specifically came up because I know there were several waves of German immigrants to the USA in the 19th century, including the first half of the century, and that from 1800-~1848, I would guess most of those people came from poor rural backgrounds, and that some of the German principalities had not yet left behind feudal rights and especially dues from the peasant class, so I’d assume there’s a lot of overlap there between the two. I’m wondering less about the cost of getting a fare to the US, I assume the answer there was just save money, but the legal problem of “I am legally tied to the land and owe some lord dues, but I want to leave.” Did they have to pay a fee to the lord to be free to migrate? Just up and flee a?

This question came up thinking about Germany before some of the Revolutions of 1848, but it could also apply to Italy, Eastern Europe, any of the immigrants from China who went to California, etc.

Like before news of Europe came to Asia they discovered a new continent did an Asian nation or someone from those nations ever try to Sail the Pacific for like a sea-route to Europe or any other reason?

In the 12th century Al Aziz Uthman tried to destroy the pyramids, he stooped all efforts to do so after it was only possible to "slightly" damage the pyramid of Menkaure during 8 months.
But why exactly was he trying to do so?

Was it because of religious reasons, or more secular ones?

So far i have not been able to find anything about it.

Before Luther wrote his Ninety-Five Theses, a couple of theologians directed fundamental criticisms at the Catholic Church. First, in the 14th century, John Wycliffe questioned the status and rituals of the clergy in England, and later, in the 15th century, Jan Hus made similar arguments. Wycliffe would be deemed a heretic, and his followers were pejoratively referred to as "Lollards." Likewise, Jan Hus was burned at the stake for his heresy. Granted, Hus' followers did respond by fighting the eponymous Hussite Wars, but they were ultimately unsuccessful. However, in the 16th century, the Catholic Church would finally meet an intractable opponent in Martin Luther. Despite incurring the ire of the Catholic Church and Holy Roman Empire, Luther's critiques would serve as the basis for the Protestant Reformation, and initiate what at that point was the greatest "thought revolution" in European history. Protestantism spread throughout northern and central Europe, even outside of Luther's native Germany. In contrast to being burned at the stake, Luther would die of natural causes as a free, venerated man. My question could be phrased in a few ways, but I think I'm basically getting at this: Why did Luther's critiques — as opposed to those of Wycliffe and Hus — become the foundation for the rupture of the Catholic Church? How was he able to evade the threats posed by the Church, and why did his ideas spread so widely and resonate so strongly? Had something about Europe changed by this point compared to the periods in which Wycliffe and Hus lived, or was there something about Luther's critiques that were fundamentally different and more appealing?

Edit: While it was running (at any point between 1932-1972 when the whistleblower came forward) to what degree was it common knowledge amongst medical professionals?

Edit 2: Schatz, not Shatz.

I've heard some people claim that the original idea of Atlantis, the island civilization that sank under the sea, was made up wholesale by Plato in a fable, and was just supposed to be an imaginary place, not something anyone believed was real. But I've also heard other people say the story has basis in real island-based civilizations that were wiped out by natural disasters like volcanic eruptions in ancient history. So did Plato actually make it all up to teach a moral lesson, or was he drawing on a pre-existing myth that would have been familiar to his audience? Or does the idea of Atlantis have a completely different origin?

Another thing I've heard that I'd like to confirm is that sometime in the 19th century the concept of Atlantis being a real place became a popular part in the theosophy movement, which may explain why believing it to be real seems to be a common fixture in weird new age-y beliefs and conspiracy theories to this day. And of course, nowadays Atlantis is an extremely common idea to include in fiction, whether as central to the plot or as an offhand reference. It's in both DC and Marvel comics, Disney movies, LEGO lines, it was a fixture of fantasy stories from the pulp magazine era, etc., etc.. So where did this ancient Greek story come from, and how did it not only become so well known to be such a stock concept in all kinds of stories (even fantasy stories set in made-up worlds often have something similar in their lore that alludes to the myth, e.g. Numenor in The Lord Of The Rings, Valyria in Game Of Thrones) but also convince a lot of people that it was real and to incorporate it into their belief systems - even though it might have originally been meant to be purely fictional.

I know that this is a major plot point in "Pride and Prejudice" for example -- the entire estate is entailed to a relative (if I have that term right), which means that the entire family will be cast out when the father dies short of one of the daughters marrying a wealthy man. What normally happened in these situations?

In the 80s and 70s coke was so big movies had budgets for it and magazines had add for coke straws.

But nowadays it is not at the level of cultural permissiveness it was back then.

What happened?

Did the crack epidemic shift the persona of coke use from rich white wall street and Hollywood guys to poor blacks?

Did the fall of the Medellin Cartel and Cali cartels cause supply chain issues?

My question is: Why did they think they would win?

It's 3 countries with decent-sized (but not huge) populations vs. the whole world. But on the other side was the rest of the world, which easily more powerful. Anyone could have seen that they were severely outnumbered and overpowered, and that they were inevitably going to lose. It's obvious; it was a world War with 3 countries on one side, and the rest of the world on the other side. No doubt those 3 countries were powerful, but on the other side they had the US, the British empire, and the USSR which combined were more powerful easily. They also had a big population advantage with china and india and all the other countries. Even if the Axis managed to temporarily win, and occupy the other countries, it wouldn't last long because they eventually would be overthrown.

So why did they fight in what seems like a losing battle?

Hello, one of my hobbies is cooking WW2 field rations, and as a non-German speaker with no close German friends to ask for aid, google translate is my only option. Recently I am translating some recipes in a Wehrmacht cookbook called, "Feldkochbuch für behelfsmäßiges Kochen und Backen in den Kolonien (Field cookbook for makeshift cooking and baking in the colonies)", that was published in 1941. What I am wondering is that did German soldiers not use paprika when they made goulash. Here are the original text from the book and my translation from google translate:

​

Gulasch.

Eine Portion Fleisch wird in etwa walnußgroße Würfel geschnitten, 1 bis 2 Eßlöffel Fett werden im Kochgeschirr zerlassen und das Fleisch darin angebräunt. Einige getrocknete Zwiebeln, Kümmel, Pfeffer und Salz werden hinzugetan und wenig Wasser zugegossen. Das Kochgeschirr ist dann zudecken und der Inhalt langsam zu schmoren. Zum Andicken der Tunke wird etwas Mehl mit wenig kaltem Wasser angerührt und zugegeben.

​

Goulash.

A portion of meat is cut into walnut-sized cubes, 1 to 2 tablespoons of fat are melted in the cookware and the meat is browned in it. A few dried onions, caraway seeds, pepper and salt are added and a little water is poured in. Then, the cookware must be covered so the contents slowly get braised. To thicken the sauce, mix a little flour with a little cold water and add in the soup.

​

I thought what makes goulash different from other common European stews and soups is the use of paprika, and I was quite surprised when I first read the recipe. What I know of is that in 1941, the German supply system wasn't very good, but wasn't dreadful yet. I also found a blog post with other German Army goulash recipes that was also published in 1941, and in the translated recipes, paprika was on the ingredient list. So here are my questions:

​

1. Did I miss the German word for paprika somehow by using google translate? or
2. Did the German Army actually not supply paprika due to the wartime shortage? or
3. Is it just because this cookbook is for the makeshift cooking?

​

Thank you!