This is, of course, inspired by watching Downton Abbey last night (I'm American and only saw the beginning of Season 4, so please, no spoilers!). I was curious to know were they really "the most hated race" throughout the inter-war period or did relations improve at all before Hitler came to power? I'm asking in terms of both politically and socially (public opinion). I apologize if this has been asked before (it seems like a popular thing to ask).

By "band" I mean "A group of people, usually four or five, who play songs they composed to an audience, sometimes as a way to earn a living". That is, I don't mean orchestras or choirs, just bands. If you know a relevant example that doesn't fit the definition, feel free to add it.

I know that The Season was a fairly significant part of life up until the 20th century if you were well-to-do, but what contributed to its decline?

Sorry for the ignorance of this question, but do we know anything of humanity before the onset of agrarianism as we've noted it? Did agrarianism come & go historically (like indoor plumbing)?

I just find it amazing that homo sapiens wandered around for so long with nothing lasting to show for it when they were evolutionarily the same as us.

Again, sorry for the dumb question, but do academic inquiries into prehistory have any comments on this idea?

I love history and this has really interested me, why was this small island able to own many places around the world, but going further back how where they regarding the roman era... Would be interesting to see where the power came from. Specially as I'm English

I'm in the process of writing a dissertation on the subject of WWII propaganda posters; focusing mostly on those produced in Britain; and so any information that you guys could provide me with would be much appreciated.

• Why were they so successful as a medium of propaganda, or is this a fallacy? Are they more popular today as pieces of design than they ever were then?
• Was the allied populations' view of the Axis as black and white as the posters would have us believe today?
• Did the posters actually have any notable effect? Did they increase signings for the army or production in the factories for example?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm trying to expand my knowledge on the subject as much as possible and I figured this is a great place to start. Thanks in advance to anyone who contributes!

Edit: I'd just like to say a massive thank you to everyone who replied, I've taken everything on board and down to you guys I've now got a fantastic array of new routes to follow/ research areas to look in to. Cheers everyone!

I know that there were a few prominent Ukrainians, and that Stalin himself was a Georgian (though he was a big supporter of russification, ironically enough). But what about the various Baltic, Caucasian and Central Asian peoples? Were they given equal treatment? Could they migrate from their various SSRs to Russia? And could they rise to important positions within the state?

During the age of the explorers and conquest in the New World and the Pacific, peoples were encountering one another without (I think) any possibility of previous linguistic overlap. So how did Columbus, Cortez, Magellan, and so on, manage to communicate with the locals? What do we know about the process? What did they start with? How long did it take? Who tended to do the learning?

I'm really curious about this issue in any historical context, but I thought the explorers and conquistadores made a good focus point. If you know about the issue in classical antiquity or some other time, I'd love to learn!

I'm curious to know if royal families, while separated by countries, knew each other on personal or intimate levels. Are there any good stories of royal children growing up together and, as adults, having to deal with each other on significant political matters?

I had wondered about this weeks ago in history class, as we read about Imperialism in Asia and Africa. Throughout the chapter we read about things like the Sepoy Mutiny and the Opium Wars, but one paragraph stood out to me. It was about the Taiping rebellion, an event that caused over 20 million deaths. How much did the chapter divulge on it? Less than a paragraph. Why is an event with more deaths than the holocaust so easily looked over?

They had money, they had political influence, and through a combination of the two, access to military might. So how was the Progressive Era able to happen? Why wasn't it just one long Gilded Age until the Great Depression?

I've looked at the threads in the faq, but they don't really address my particular question. I understand the appeal of Christian doctrine to the masses. So it makes sense that certain pagan or non-christian societies would convert (i.e., it would be specifically endorced by the upper classes) once enough of the peasantry had converted. I take this to be roughly the situation in the Roman Empire, but I'll be happily corrected if I'm wrong.

I'm more interested in those cases where the leaders seem to have converted first. As in the case of the Vikings. Presumably there are other cases of missionaries in the 17th and 18th centuries as well. What was the appeal of Christianity to kings or chiefs?

Do daily meditation books derive from prayer books? Or from the keeping of time in religion?

I've seen sites that say crossbows were virtually useless against armor, to the exact opposite, crossbows being so effective they were outlawed by the Church and caused heavy armors to lose popularity.

So just how well would an armored individual fare in a battle that employed crossbowmen?

And what was there purpose in the battlefield? If I were to guess, they'd be used to dismantle enemy artillery such as catapults, trebuchets, etc.