I have heard claims the the USSR was a democratic system of worker Soviets who’s members could vote on their rule. But I have also heard accusations that the USSR was a one party state where the average citizen had very little say in decision making and the the government was comprised of a political ruling class that did not have enough accountability to the people.

Perhaps the democratic function of the USSR changed over time?

What is the historic consensus on this matter?

In the relatively early days of the Beatles making music videos, Ringo was often given somewhat ridiculous ("I Feel Fine", "Help") props or nothing to do at all ("Paperback Writer"), while the other Beatles played and sang. Why weren't there any drums for him to play? Was it just that no one felt like schlepping a drum kit from point A to point B, or was there a less petty reason?

If their was enough of an objection to African Americans voting that Jim Crow laws were implemented to circumvent the 15th amendment, then how were its proponents able to get support from enough states to get the amendment passed?

There used to be a lot of shows in the 80s and 70s in which the butt of the joke was often the husband and the wife hating each other

This contrasts with earlier comedies like I love Lucy or Bewitched where the couple loved each other dearly, and with more current shows which also tend to have healthier relationships, even in Malcom in the Middle the parents loved each other despite how disfunctional they were in other senses

The "I hate my wife" comedies seem to have been made for and by baby boomers

Did baby boomers have worse marriage lives than other generations?, did they just find the idea specially funny for some reason?

So first question, I suppose is, "Was Ceylon governed separately from the Raj?"

I read in an answer here on AH that in 1952 Ceylon had nearly double the GDP per capita of India. What caused that?

Bloodletting is the classic example, but I actually understand that one fairly well - passing out for a few hours is a great way to begin to deal with many diseases.

What I'm thinking is more like Pliny's cure for a toothache: "using the ashes of the head of a dog that has died in a state of madness. The head, however, must be burnt without the flesh, and the ashes injected with oil of Cyprus into the ear on the side affected."

Presumably the first time, or at least the second time, somebody tried this and their tooth didn't feel better, they would have stopped.

From what I've heard, sci-fi was a very popular genre in the Soviet Union, so I'm wondering how much Western sci-fi was available there and in the other Warsaw Pact countries and how both the authorities and the people reacted to it.

I especially wonder about Star Trek, since I've often heard the society it portrays described as a communist utopia. Did the communists see it that way?

I have read that the EU is comparable to the Roman Empire in the terms that it had a shared currency, language, freedom of religion and free movement. Did the Roman Empire try to work towards a shared identity like the EU and was there a struggle to do this like we see with the EU today ?

Hello, I've been reading the Landmark edition of Thucydides, currently I'm in book 3. On the whole I'd say I'm enjoying it, though some parts are more interesting/easier to read than others. The speeches in particular are very enjoyable.

I was under the impression that Thucydides would provide a good deal of analysis of the events and characters, but so far I've found that the vast majority is 'just' a recounting of the events that transpire. I've also read that he has certain insights that make his analysis applicable to modern-day geopolitics, which I thought would be very interesting to read. So far I wouldn't say that has been the case. I suppose I'm wondering if he will provide more commentary later in the book? For those who've read it, what are some memorable parts (other then e.g. the funeral oration in book 2)?

Thanks a lot.

In my AP Euro class we've been learning about European history starting from the renaissance up until imperialism (we're still learning stuff) and I started to think about what I've been learning so far. I was thinking like this: Louis XIV racked up lots of debt for France and France rose and fell under him. The debt that France incurred was one of the factors that led to the French revolution right after the American one. The French revolution was a mess of many phases like the great terror and after some time republics and empires came until Napoleon III came to power. Napoleon III was defeated by some Germanic states later on that eventually led to the unification of the German Empire. There were tensions between the Ottomans and Russians due to some reasons I can't remember (wars due to the holy land or something and defending Greece for some reason) and Russians with the Austro-Hungarians for some other reason I can't remember. These tensions between powers were then set free to wreak havoc on Europe with the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip. I'm pretty sure I got some facts wrong in my way of thinking, but would it be plausible to argue that Louis XIVs reign as absolute monarch of France led to WW1? Please correct me for whatever I made a mistake on. Thanks!

I'm really confused on whether the war actually happened or not. I heard that the whole entire war was made up and people like Cao Cao never existed.

Did the people in Tchaikovsky's time enjoy Bach or Beethoven? Likewise, did people in Beethoven's time enjoy Handel and Vivaldi?

I'm sure the title is a little complicated, but let me expand:

Basically, I've been led to believe there are two trains of thought - One states horses are cheap and undervalued creatures, where if they get a broken bone and/or, hurt they are better off being put down. The other one is that horses are valuable creatures, expensive to train and so they were valued and kept out of danger.

On point one, it is very normal for us to read news, or stories or the similar (Specially something around 50~70 years) on how if a horse had a broken leg, or a similarly a broken bone, the owners decided to simply put it down instead of letting it heal. This kind of story or statement makes it seems like horses are very undervalued, as in its easier/better to kill the animal instead of letting it heal.

Now on the other spectrum, I had recently watched some videos on "Experts react to historical movies", where we have these massive horse charges and the experts usually state the same - "Horses are expensive and valuable creatures, and so the knights would usually not fight on horseback.", making it seem like those big charges are not usually true and that horses mostly be kept out of danger.

Now the difference is usually in the time - Most undervalued horse stories are a more modern approach, while the valuable horses one is much older, medieval and so on.

So when did the view on horses changed so much? Or it didn't really, and they've been treated fairly similarly throughout the eras?

I imagine it was difficult to reconcile worms showing up in your poop for the first time or finding a fifteen foot long tapeworm in someone’s bowels.

Did they have treatments or common explanations for how these showed up in some people and not others? Was there common treatments?