Were actors/actresses famous in Ancient Rome? Would Ancient Romans anticipate a new show much like people today anticipate the newest Tarantino/Leonardo DiCaprio movie?

Also, if I wanted to see one of these shows, could I simply line up, or were tickets super hard to get with a scalper market any everything? Also, we’re autographs a thing???

Thanks!!!

I'm currently reading (Audible listening, anyway) The Rise and Fall of the third Reich by William Shirer. What did he get right, and wrong about the times? His views on homosexuality are awful, but common for the era for example. So far he seems to place a lot of blame on Neville Chamberlain. No spoiler alert worries, I know how it ends, lol.

The Winter war is often memed as "A bunch of farmers beating a great power". While it is true that the Finns were conscripts and somewhat poorly armed and equipped, the actual level of training has remained somewhat ambiguous to me. How good soldiers were the Finnish conscripts/reservists in 1939? How did they compare to other countries' troops, professional or drafted?

From my (very limited) research I see the largest battle of the medieval period was around 30,000 men per side (Grunwald) where it seems that Rome could, many times throughout its' history, field 60,000-100,000 troops for a single battle and quite often come up against enemies with the similar or greater numbers. Did the militaries of the Roman era understand something unique about recruitment and management of large armies or was there outside factors or just flat out less people?

For instance, my great-grandmother, born in 1917, was told by her grandmother that they were part Cherokee, and my mother passed it down to me. I took a DNA test that found absolutely no Native American ancestry. It seems strange that 19th century white people would want to be associated with a despised minority: I've never met a white family that claimed African ancestry.

Sorry, if this is a stupid question, but I have been curious about how German culture became what is it is now.

I'm a south Asian foreigner, living in Germany for over a decade. One thing I really noticed here is that Germany has rules for almost everything. I have lived at least 3 years in 3 other countries, while also traveled in numerous other countries. I don't think I know of any other country which has more regulations and rules. So, I have wondering if there's a historical reason behind this.

From the humble knowledge I've about Germany, I know the fact during Roman era, Germany had many many tribes who were fighting among themselves all the time. They were difficult to rule, as Roman empire didn't manage to conquer beyond the southern part of the modern Germany. Until Prussia, there were never any united German land. They were usually divided and had battles and fights. Hence, my perception is that, in order to get united, they needed rules that ought to be followed orderly to maintain peace.

Is my perception correct?

Thanks.

From what I understand, it was because she conspired to remove Elizabeth from the throne. But this begs the question - she was a Queen in her own right, so why would it be 'treasonous' for her to do something like that and not mere statecraft that a monarch was expected to be engaged in. After all, as a Queen, she wasn't a subject of Elizabeth. On whose authority was the execution based?

Can someone suggest a good book about the german colonies?

She was queen of probably the most powerful country at the time and he was second of a prince in some to some random German state. Couldn't/ wasn't she encouraged to marry someone more important like a king or something?

I recently watched Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World. On the HMS Surprise was John Allen who seemed to be a peer of the senior officers on board and held the role of Sailing Master. What rank did he have aboard ship and what were his specific duties?

How realistic do you think the grand battles from 'Outlaw King' were? I see that the engagement quickly devolves into a "skirmish" situation where soldiers mingle and fight one another. Do we have reasons to believe that such kind of fighting happened? How would the soldiers know who's friend and who's foe? How would they keep their formation from breaking? Did cavalry really charge infantry formations head on back in that day?

If I am right to be puzzled by all this, do you have any books or films to suggest that better describe/depict what battlefields of the time were like?

Since Poland had such a large Jewish population before the Second World War, it surprised me to find out anti semitism was an issue. Presumably relations between Jews and gentiles had been okay at some point, since the community of Jews was so large. Was the rise in anti semitism due to Nationalism, or was partly due to the Polish institutions encouraging anti semitism?

Im required to write a report on Marco Polo's historical development for my class. Ive googled the meaning but i dont think im fully grasping what "Historical Development" of a person means? Can anyone lend me alil insight please? Thanks in Advance!

Hi all, this may sound like a dumb quesiotn, but I'm writing an essay for my uni course about if WW1 was truley a global confllict. But the problem I always have with essays is the reading, I'm a slow SLOW reader and I take ages to read through the material and take a lot of notes that end up mostly being ignored. Is there a method to reading for essays, or any tips, to help narrow this time down. Maybe certain things to be looking for so I'm not stopping to take pointless notes.

Thanks for any replies :)

As the title says, I feel like I know hardly anything about Africa in general. How would you approach such a generally huge and open ended topic?

I am referring to the thesis that Japan had to attack the US as active US trade restrictions (especially the embargo on oil) threatened the supply lines established in SE Asia, which were vital for the continuation of the Japanese war effort in China. How 'unprovoked' was Japan?

Also - was the US aware of the possible consequences of their embargo? They must have known it would greatly threaten Japanese sustained war effort? Were these consequences unintended?

This happening in the backdrop of the US being firmly perceived as an aggressive imperialist power - even though US official public discourse at the time conveniently decided to focus on Pearl Harbor at the exclusion of the attack on Manilla (as well as the simultaneous declaration of war on hong kong, Malaya or Singapore). BTW - why was that? Is that only because the US as a colonizing power didn't chime very well with the idea that US citizens had of their country?

Lastly - what was Japan really hoping to achieve with their attack?

I am aware that these are tropes common amongst Japanese apologists and I am not implying that US restrictions are on par with widescale invasion and not condoning any of the Japanese actions leading up to their involvement in the ww2, the litany of war crimes or the invasion of China.

"A knight goes on a quest" is mostly a trope of fiction. But that trope will often conjure imagery of slaying a dragon or monster.

Is it not possible that one from Republican Rome could travel to Egypt and slay a Nile Crocodile? If I were a Roman patrician I'd be pretty impressed if someone slayed a crocodile. For someone predisposed to enjoy hunting, I'm sure that would be fun. There was an enormous tradition of hunting tigers during the Raj in India, but before that? It isn't too big of a stretch to tell a realistic story involving a travelling hero saving a remote village from a monster, if that monster is a tiger with a broken jaw, leading to man eating tendencies. This trope can be seen in modern story telling, from RPGs to hollywood movies, but is common in mythology the world over, in unconnected canons like English and Chinese mythology (Rescue a maiden from a monster can be seen all over).

So was there any tradition or individual incidents of people slaying "monsters" or big predators as an occupation or even hobby, in medieval, or preferably pre medieval periods?

Many thanks.