For instance, the Statue of Liberty came to the US from France and Canada getting tulips from Holland. I don't mean diplomatic gifts, such as cigars or booze or whatever that two leaders might exchange at a summit. I'm talking about monuments or the like that are huge and often enjoyed by the public.

Constantine ruled only a couple of centuries after the supposed death of Jesus, so that's roughly as fresh in the mind to them as Waterloo would be to a modern European. How did the Roman state explain itself (or did they try to censor that?) and how did the Roman people approach that fact?

That is my question.

Regards,

FF

I'm working on an rpg campaign set in the ancient Roman Empire, specifically in the Gallic province of Aquitania during the "Imperial Crisis". I'm starting the campaign around a city called "Burdigala", what was this city like? What kind of architecture was used in these areas? What was life generally like in Roman Gaul / Aquitania?

I am currently taking a free Coursera course called the Age of Sustainable Development. One of the assertions made by Professor Sachs is that "You could take a farmer from Roman times and if possible put him down into England on a farm in the 17th century and he would feel relatively at home."

Can anyone verify this? It sounds rather dubious to me.

Women have always been the people that cooked at home for their families, so why have they not traditionally been more represented in Cooking professionally? It seems all the great Chefs of the past have been Male (think Escoffier etc) and all their assistants have been male as well.

How did this come about? Wouldn't women have been trusted to cook better food than men?

And conversely, was there ever a time when women actually outnumbered men in this field and if so, what caused it to shift?

I originally posted this question over at /r/HistoricalWhatIf, but they seemed to think it was more appropriate here!

Please allow me to elaborate... I'm writing a story, and I'm having trouble in this area of research because it's such a specific situation.

Let's say this person is an aristocratic female, widowed in Victorian England (~1870s/1880s). She inherits everything from her husband (property, money, businesses/whatever they're invested in), but has no children. If she goes missing for a long time, what happens to all that property? Could a rumor that this person was "mad" affect the fate of the property? Could living relatives (mothers, uncles, the husband's family, etc.) take back whatever the widow inherited? Is it seized by the state?

This woman cannot be proved dead, but is also nowhere to be found.

Thank you for your time! :D

Alright, I am thinking about getting a tattoo in memory of a friend who died from Hemophilia related complications. I know the prefix hemo or hema means blood and philia means love. I keep when I translate the quote I want to get it always comes up with αἵμα instead of hemo or hema. Why is this?

I am well aware that Erwin Rommel was well known for his kindness as well as his disdain for Hitler's policies in general. However, I have also heard that while he was a great general, he was lacking tactically. Therefore, is the modern perception of him truly correct?

First off, What were its plans for the future with India, during the early 1900's and how did it change over the next 50 years.

Once they decided to give them Independence, what was it hoping to happen in the future? Were there actions based on good intentions? Did they have a cordial relationship with govt of India?

What was the common man's view and attitude towards India?

Since this has happened after WW II, was this a conscious decision of the combined allies ? or just Britain. How much influence did America have over these decisions.

Did America/Americans perceive India differently ?

Was India treated differently than other British colonies in Africa etc..

And finally how successful were Indian leaders actions during this period? How do they fair when compared to freedom fighters in other countries.

After reading about the IJN's disaster with the Shinano and its own poor damage control actions, I'm interested in seeing what the comparisons were across different navies. Were there specific crews assigned to the role or was it the task of each separate battle station? How big was the technological gaps between the axis and allied navies?

I find the disorder fascinating and always try to make sense of their grand plan whenever I encounter one. Apart from self-destructive voices and religious imagery, nothing any of them have said would have been valid beyond 1900 or so.

In an era before CIA monitoring, chemtrails, fluoridated water supplies, and tailing cars, what did (supposed) schizophrenics mull over? Were they convinced that kings followed them in carriages? Was the East India Company in bed with the Chinese? Did cultural phenomenon like Napoleonic-era obsession with egyptology influence half a century of people sure that they were Bastet?

Im maybe making a poor assumption, but I believe we had a british accent back in the 1700s, since we were under British rule. But then 100 years later, during the civil war, it seems that the dialect/accent is gone. Am I right in thinking that we lost the accent in only 100 years or so?

I am just trying to find out what type of ship it was or likely was, a brigantine, barque, sloop? etc.

I always here about how the countries like Sweden and Norway are pushing the limits in progressive reform. Just on the front page there is a post about how good Norway's recycling programs are. How do these countries do what other countries can't, and how did they get to this position?

I'm currently reading a book about the whaleship Essex and the unfortunate events that led to the death of nearly everyone aboard the ship. In the early stages of the journey, there is some tension between the crew and the officers over the matter of food. Specifically, the crew feels they are not being fed well, which is true, but the crew blames the captain for rationing, when in reality the ship was simply underprovisioned by the owners.

In the description of the first whale caught, they strip the blubber and get the spermaceti out of the head cavity, but there's no mention of any part of the whale being butchered for meat. It seems like a ready supply of meat was just thrown away with the skeleton. Is anyone aware of a reason why the whale would not be at least partially butchered for consumption by the crew of the ship? I haven't found much information specifically regarding the edibility of sperm whales, but it seems that there are a lot of species of whale that are actively eaten around the world.

Thanks for taking the time to read, and I look forward to any answers that may be forthcoming!

Or is it only an impression?

Just finished a book about early 19th century economics, and I totally get why having currency tied to precious metals is a hinderance, but why do we keep the gold around?

I was born after the fall of the Soviet Union, so I have no personal memories to go off of here. People referred to WWI as "The Great War" until WWII, and (I believe) they referred to WWII as simply "the war" while it was going on. Did something similar happen during the Cold War, ie did people living through it refer to the conflict/lack thereof by another name, or did people actually call it the Cold War?