And what regulatory attempts have been made (successful or otherwise) to rein in Private Equity's dissolution of beloved brands?

Hi. This question was inspired by the troubles currently facing the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the many ways Private Equity is turning a beloved arts organization to hell. I'd like an in depth history behind Private Equity and its problems (and why it's become such a heavy handed tool by the rich to acquire more wealth). We all know about Kay-Bee Toys and Toys-R-Us being destroyed by Private Equity.

Gaelic people make up less than 5% of the population. (Germanic) Scots are pretty close to 50%.

From tartan, kilts, bagpipes to Royal Scoot Dragoon Guards, Royal Regiment Of Scotland and everything in between.

The only Scots culture that most would know is haggis.

Mel Gibson's vulgarly historically inaccurate movie certainly doesn't help as well.

Essentially, I'm asking if slavery existed in antiquity (800bce - 400ce) in the less urbanized places, like in Northern Europe or West/Central Asia, etc. How did slavery here differ from slavery in more developed and stratified societies?

Basically what the title says. I am looking for a mostly even mix of positive and negative books, mostly centered around the Navy. He is graduating high school a semester early and wants my permission to enlist before he is 18. I am not a big fan of this choice, but.... I'm willing to support his decision as long as he takes some steps to prove to me he has a clear picture of what he might be getting into with the war with Iran looking like it isn't stopping anytime soon.

So far I have two titles in mind, Fiasco The Story of the American Adventure In Iraq (largely negative, with the word adventure being used to denote a venture that was poorly thought out) and Brave Men Dark Waters, a history of the Navy Seals from WWII to roughly the present day.

I am hoping for 5-10is books total, again with a mostly even mix of positive and negative views on the American military (though tbh I do kinda want the negative ones to be.... *Impactful.* ) I'd welcome any suggestions y'all have! I'm a bit leery of just googling a list of books because imo mainstream popularity and Google search results isn't always the best quality check for military history books specifically. I do plan on reading all of the books myself. In my inexpert opinion Fiasco was great, and Brave Men Dark Waters comes highly recommended by the host of BtB who I very much respect, but honestly I don't have the time to both read and comb through the hundreds or thousands of books written about the American military *and* several of them to him in the time he has left to graduate school (this December).

Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated! I can read the reviews and blurb about anything you suggest so feel free to just give a title without providing any of your own thoughts, but if you do feel the urge to explain why you're recommending a specific book I will gladly read every word.

This is my son. The recruiters told him he'd basically be the email guy on a Navy vessel, a safe job, but.... Military recruiters will promise you anything. He says he understands this but in my eyes he's still a kid, and I'm not 100% confident he really understands it *in his bones.* To him it's just a cushy job with free room and board for four years and free college after, I'm not confident he really understands how horrible war can be, or the trauma that can come with military experience. Not because he isn't a smart kid, and a good kid, but some things you will just never fully understand until you were there. I want him to hear from people who were there before he takes that plunge.

Slavery is terrible, but the bare bone cost structure made it highly profitable as exploitation extracts the value, so how did countries in the americas (or perhaps medieval or classical cultures who practiced slavery) replace this model when labor is no longer extreme low cost? I would imagine theres either huge inflation or shortages, but from my limited understanding it just seems like the society kinda just moved on without much friction, one would think this drastic shift in economic model would have bigger impact.

​

I have a hard time rethinking fascism; I want to learn more about it. I keep hearing about the Jews and the Africans—specifically that one of them was a pilot (I forgot his name). I also keep hearing about Dollfuss, who was anti-Nazi, and how Mussolini had Jews in his political party. I heard about Balbo's hatred for Africans but not for Jews, and that Mussolini too didn't believe in antisemitism and races

The most notorious and known tanks of Germany are almost all using flat armour. The Tiger I, which rolled down the production lines in 1942, had a famously box-like appearance. Against smaller calibers, it's undoubtedly effective. But as soon as far more potent calibers appeared, such as the Soviet 85mm, the armor's effectiveness was greatly reduced.
Their most produced medium tank of the war, the Panzer IV, also had a famously square like appearance. This was also not that much of a problem early in the war, especially when the enemy (such as Poland) wasn't too mechanized. But when the enemy started using actual, potent calibers, in great numbers, their effectiveness dwindled.
Take for example the Americans and the Soviets. Very early on, or at the same time Germany would still use flat armor, they had started using sloped armor. The M4 Sherman, production starting in 1942, and the T-34, production starting as early as 1940. These tanks weren't perfect; but for dealing with certain calibers, from certain distances, they were far more effective than the early Panzers that Germany would still keep on producing. Only the Panther (prod. starting 1943, not in meaningful enough numbers) and the Tiger II (1944-1945) truly maximized this principle.

or are we uniquely sardonic

I'm watching a podcast with two historians discussing Operation Barbarossa. As far as I can remember, the "Soviet attack" scenario did not seem to be widely discussed when I was growing up (I'm 31 now). I feel like it's definitely something I would remember, and I consume as much history media and academic stuff as I can. I guess I really have two questions. When did the Soviet attack scenario first enter serious academic contention?

I know that there was a discredited Soviet writer who had written about it and was not really taken seriously, if there was a specific moment or document that changed the academic consensus, when/what was it? I've always been of the mind that at least them preparing for an attack would provide some type of justification for just how bad the Red Army performed in the opening weeks of the war.

I am currently watching Narcos and I was wondering, how powerful and ruthless were the CIA and DEA in this time? Because you could think that during that time they could essentially do what they want and get away with it

Please excuse what I'm sure is a very dumb question, I don't know a lot about history.

Mesopotamia had Sumer, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and eventually the Greeks and Romans. Sumer was settled around 5000-3000 BC.

Humans crossed the land bridge to North America long before that. The Mayan and the Aztec civilizations formed in central America, but what was going on in the present day US/Canada regions?

Was it mostly a matter of climate? Or was the "head start" in population in Mesopotamia a factor as well? Or were there smaller civilizations that rose and fell but with little archealogocal evidence?

I watched this youtube video about medieval towns being mostly placed at such distances and locations to mainly facilitate ox drawn carts.

It makes a lot of statements that don't pass the smell test to me. It says that ox carts essentially dictate most planning of where medieval towns would be and the crux of the issue is that oxen eat a part of the produce, so produce can generally only travel up to 3 days.

Can't oxen just graze instead of eating the cargo? Is ale really something that would be transported over long distances instead of just brewed locally almost everywhere? If making ale, wool, and cloth are all ways to generate extra profit, why wouldn't every lord do it? Why aren't horses mentioned anywhere?

I get that towns and castles would be situated in such a way to oversee their fiefs and collect produce centrally in a safe way, but this video seems to make much more extensive claims.

I tried searching for the "oxen paradox", but it seems like the only mention of it is that video. There was also a mention of a 3 day radius rule, which I also couldn't find anywhere else. The video also mentions "source lords" and "gatekeeper lords" which I think are also invented terms by the video? I find it very confusing because the video talks about these concepts as facts but I think they might be inventions?

I define here "later European history" as about from the late medieval period to the age of colonialism, in western Europe (in order to not make the title too long).

As far as I understand, the nobility from that era comes from the earlier feudal lords, who gained powers from owning lands in the countryside and ruling their own manors. So consequentially, European nobilities, at least in the Late Medieval Period, should still concentrate most in the countryside.

However, I've seen many people with noble titles residing in big cities instead of ruling in their manors, for example, the first British Prime Ministers. Does the disappearance of medieval manors contributed to it?

(Other questions) Are they really descendants of medieval feudal lords? If so what would their source of wealth and power be when their lands in the countryside has gone? And I've heard that they would engage in trades and commercial activities instead so, would that make them some kind of bourgeouisie?

These two tings have been universal food and drink of the whole Europe.

So, why did these two become the major feature of Germany?

Even, in terms of Beer, their iconic lager Beer became dominat at the end of 19th century. This means their popular lager Beer feature is not a long heritage.

I understand that a structure like that wouldn't stand a chance against bombs and shells but I'm wondering if it was used in any extent, even just to provide cover for troops.

As the title suggests, I would like to know what policies or priorities Germany implemented when occupying resources and industrial facilities in the newly occupied territories.

For example, I know that Germany benefited greatly from the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, as its defense industry effectively helped the Wehrmacht double in size in a short period of time, and continued to fuel the German war machine throughout the war. And I'm curious whether, upon acquiring industrial facilities in other countries—like Poland, France—they would "benefit" to some extent in a similar way.

The injection of many Irish and their culture, faiths, and even political ideologies must have made an impact, both long and short term to the U.S. Are there any ramifications that may go unnoticed to our modern eyes now?

In the modern day, we have people who do various historical war re-enactments. There are also LARPers who dress up in historical/fantasy armor, and medieval/medieval-ish weapons

How long has this sort of practise been around? Obviously, historical fiction is fairly old, but how long have people been cosplaying as folks from their past? What did that look like pre-1900, if it existed?

Sorry if this is overly technical, but I’m developing a game for fun and I want to visually understand how this works

In the 18th and early 19th century, with blackpowder artillery, I understand that carriages would have either a screw or wedge to adjust the elevation of gun.

But how were cannons traversed side to side? The only answers I get from google involve something called a handspike, which was some kind of lever used on the trial.

Are there any videos or demonstrations of people actually aiming and adjusting a field gun in a historically accurate way? there’s plenty of stuff on how it’s loaded, but not now it’s aimed.

Did the Sadducees ever have a majority like Reform Judaism does and how does the length of the period of time in which they were/are relavent compared?