All I know is that they were nomads who settled in (modern) Hungary

Watching films and TV shows set in the prohibition era, everyone, or at least everyone middle class and above, always seems extremely well put together in terms of clothing and personal grooming. Given the complexity of outfits in those days and the differences in technology, roughly how long would it take an average man to get ready in the morning?

And were any Union equivalents to the Confederate Home Guard militias given the task to look for these soldiers post-war?

For example, would they take time off to celebrate Easter, New Years Day, Christmas, etc.

From what little I've come across I've always been left with the feeling that gunners on WWII bombers weren't massively effective. Does anyone know much about this area?

Something I always wondered about. I know that there were very different types of soldiers, but what was the general consensus of the 6. army?

Thanks in advance

In one of my lectures the professor said that there are two main ideas for the true purpose of Medieval British castles: the first was that they were defensive and could hold seiges and kept the royalty in them and people lived there, the other was that it was just a show of power and intimidation for the enemy, and only to be used as a last resort for defence. He was in the second camp, and I can see why both arguments are valid, but I couldn't find a lot of research to back him up. Here in Wales we have more castles than anywhere else, and I can see why castles would be built for defensive purposes (e.g. Pembroke Castle) and why it would be built for show (e.g. Chepstow Castle). So which is it?

If a town was sacked and it's population enslaved by an invading force like in biblical times, how were the fates of these new prisoners decided? who is assumed to be the owner of these slaves and how would they transport them to markets? would the individual soldiers be entitled to any, or would they have to buy them from someone? would random slavers tag along on the average military campaign? Would an independent buyer purchase the bulk of them from the leader of the army and distribute them elsewhere? how many would actually make it to a permanent labor position in a home or on a farm?

As the title says. Germany already had an army, why did they make another one?

I was discussing the bar exam last night with some lawyer friends and it really seems like an antiquated notion. Clearly it doesn't weed out incompetent attorneys, the number of lawyers that couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag seems to be ever growing. It also does nothing to indicate the ethical implications of a lawyer's eventual practice. There are some actual real life scumbags in the legal profession.

When taking into account that Abraham Lincoln, renowned in his time as a great lawyer, didn't take any form of bar exam, what is America doing? Why did this hurdle to legal practice sprout? My cynical side leads me to think so state bars could make money while leading the legally uneducated public to believe lawyers are a higher grade of professional. What were the arguments for the exam at the time?

I've seen articles calling Romulus, Numa Pompilius and the other kings 'legendary'; how much do we know (or rather, suspect) about the Kingdom of Rome? Did a man called Romulus probably exist, was the Rape of the Sabine Women real or a myth, and was the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus an actual event? Most importantly, beyond Livy, what are our most extant sources on the period?

I realize this is a contentious argument without a clear answer, but I'm hoping to have your perspectives. I think there definitely clear-cut negatives and some positives (infrastructure?). What do you think?

That is to say, was there much far left activity in West Germany prior to reunification?

I'm currently watching 'The Great War' documentary series. We've got to the point where the altered Schlieffen plan has been halted, and, through a failure of both sides to penetrate their respective enemies' lines, the front line has developed and trench warfare has commenced.

The quotes from both sides make it clear that all concerned were aware the ability to push through enemy lines was going to be exceedingly difficult, and that the war had changed its form from one of attack and penetration to one of 'grind' (to paraphrase!)

But why didn't the allied forces, specifically Britain, try to get behind the German lines?

I see that trying to do so at the south end of the front line would be too much to ask (for both sides) - it's a long walk, there are mountains, etc. But the whole coast of Belgium was available - Britain had sea superiority to the extent that the German navy was essentially contained in its own waters (and that's why I can see that the Germans wouldn't be able to do what I'm suggesting).

So why didn't the allies send a load of troops into Belgium to help break down the German lines from behind?

So, from what I know, there were plenty of merchant republics (being Venice the most important one) in Northern Italy, the cradle of renaissance. What I don't understand is, how could such small states be able to fuel an important intellectual revolution? I know their trade power was important, but how developed was trade in the pre-capitalism world? Usually when I hear someone talk about any kind of economy pre-modern times, agriculture was always the centre, and I assume these merchant republics (just by their size) weren't so strong in that aspect.

If possible, could you please provide some sources? Thanks in advance!