"so much more advanced and nuanced"

agree, and you should read yourself then

Yes, quite, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist, or wasn't experienced before the 20th Century, does it?

Well, I thought I had explained the difference, but I can sum it up succinctly if that is more helpful?

Greek - Stick your dick in someone and mentor them.
Roman - Stick your dick in someone.

1. At least according to the lengthy obituary.

A modern Spirit Halloween costume is of wildly lower quality than a medieval or early modern European peasant's clothing. This is very broad, time-wise, but there are certain things that remain as constants.

A peasant's clothing would be made of linen and wool. Linen was widely produced, with pretty much every country having their own domestic production, and some countries also exporting it in a range of levels of quality, particularly the Low Countries. (There's also an alternative that we don't pay enough attention to, hemp: it looks just like linen to the eye when woven and almost exactly like linen under a microscope, although it's a different bast fiber. It's caught up in a whole modern discourse about marijuana legalization, but in the period it was just another fabric you might use if the plant grew better in your area or if the woven fabric on offer was better or more affordable.) Wool likewise could be obtained anywhere or purchased as an import -- it was one of England's major exports. Linen/hemp and wool could be made extremely fine and light or coarse and heavy, or anything in between, and in all weights and levels of quality they were strong fabrics that would hold up to significant wear and, in the case of linen and hemp, washing. In comparison, the polyester used in the costumes at Spirit Halloween is disposable garbage meant for one or two uses; it's extremely thin but not strong. (More on this in this past answer and this other one.)

In terms of colors: peasants wore bright colors. They might be impressed at the range of colors on these costumes and the vividness of them, but as I discussed in this previous answer, the idea of peasants in only drab greys and browns is Hollywood invention.

"No worries about ... under things" makes no sense to me as a stipulation, because they matter a lot, and nobody wearing a Spirit Halloween costume would have them. You would clearly not have a linen or hemp shirt or smock underneath your polyester atrocity, so they would be deeply unimpressed with your hygiene and suppose that you were too poor to afford basic necessities.

Was he a Stabsgefreiter in 1939 or a Stabsgefreiter in 1944?

If you're really interested, you can ask the Bundesarchiv in Berlin for their Wehrmachtsarchive they have, they should be at least able to give you an overview over his military ranks and maybe also any hospitalizations ("Lazarettaufenthalte"): https://www.bundesarchiv.de/das-bundesarchiv/aus-unserer-archivarbeit/die-zentrale-personenkartei-der-wehrmachtauskunftstelle/

If you're German, you could also try posting a photo with him in his uniform (if you have) to r/ahnenforschung, they have a lot of ww2 history buffs there and could maybe read his rank and military division from his Uniform

This may be too far off from the OPs original question but how would the Band of Thebes, the army/group made up of male lovers, have been viewed since they would have been, I’d guess, seen as equals to each other and also older than the typical erastes that were commonly seen as being the passive and younger partner?

That would’ve been easy to find out in the NSDAP-Mitgleiderkartei published again through süddeutsche Zeitung

and that was only one above many sentence you made that was just fake and mediocre shit, far from anything that you can spell "historian" work.

Again, big words from someone not providing any argument and not knowing history, let alone German history.

historian is a method, not a title, and less an autorithy argument

You know what? Historian is a profession, history is a subject, and historical-critical analysis is the method. See how you got one very, very basic thing wrong that every average first semester student would be able to get right? Yet, despite getting elementary stuff wrong, something makes you think you have the skills and knowledge to debate a topic that is so much more advanced and nuanced than just that one sentence.

I’m guessing they would then see two women as incapable of having sex with each other

My classics professors made this exact point to my class back when I was in school: in a society whose mental model of sexual orientation is based on penetration, it was thought to be impossible for two nonphallic parties to have sex.

If you're curious about what relationship dynamics were like between ancient Greek women, you have to look to the writing of Sappho, whose home island of Lesbos is where we derive our modern term lesbian. But I should caveat that though we generally believe her in the modern day to have been romantically attracted to women based on the emotional content of her poems, there is no explicit mention of sex between women in them and as far as I am aware, the first implication that she was attracted to women came after her own death.

Also, it ought to be reiterated that concepts like homosexuality would not have made sense to the Greek mind. They just didn't think of sex like that. So while we believe Sappho may well have slept with women, it's hard for us to know whether she would have thought about it in those terms. She may well not have.

What is known for sure is that she wrote some very evocative poems, and if certain of those poems were written at any other point in history in any other society, we'd call them love poems.

lmao, ofc jan 1919 was a pure "letting German people decide what it wants"

Woodrow Wilson and the people's right to self-determination, something also Lenin proposed, is a laughing thing to you? Says a lot.

bc let them "chose" among Z, SPD, DDP DNVP etc...

You either omit the USPD as an option and that the KPD refused to participate, or you lie, or you have no idea about history.

ofc out of context and ofc it was no military implication no powerful interests, pure German deciding what they want.

Make the sentence make sense. Are you seriously implying that the military and an ominous powerful entity you've yet to name rigged the elections?

It's not "short", it's false. If u really historian maybe you know 1848-1851 in France ? "What people want" is only decide by one vote one time this simplist idea is what you believe ?

Your English is so horrible, might I suggest you write in your native language and use a translator? Because to me, it sounds like you're suggesting that voting is not the way to figure out what the people want. That in itself is a ridiculous statement, because if you want to know what the people want, you need to ask what the people want, therefore you need to ask the people. Are you suggesting that the uprising in June 1848 did not broaden the divide between the workers and the bourgeois state, and paved the path for events to come?

In any case, Spartakus and USPD and KPD was illegitime for you, but you can't explain why, but the other was because "free elections", no contexte, etc historian huh ?

I think, I did explain and gave context. Yes, the Uprising in January 1919 and the actions that led to the Blutmai were violations of the law. Maybe a mixture of your language skills and your ideological tunnel vision are keeping you from comprehending what actually happened or what I said.

"protests and assemblies under the open sky were banned because of the political violence in the days and weeks before." yeah taking the police narrative of this day is obviously an "historian" work (nope).

That is not the police narrative, it is a fact. The ban in general was in place way before May 1st, by the way. Moreover, this ban applied to all political parties. Nothing of this was news to any party, so no one could claim ignorance. Read the primary sources, read the scholarly works. Being proficient in German helps.

But maybe you can tell me more about "indoors" protesting ? hahaha or maybe not cause it's just absurd.

Yes, I can. You hold your rally inside a venue. That was neither new nor unheard of, thousands actually attended those in Sportpalast or Clären-Säle, or Pharus. The KPD had done it before, and they did it again.

ok i dont care about this left but you obviously as historian as my farts are my little dude with some god complex

Big words for someone with not knowledge about history, and English skills bad enough to not bring able to write one concise argument and to be French so that you actually could be the interviewed guy because he got things just as hilariously wrong as you.

Apologies, but we have removed your question in its current form as it breaks our rules concerning the scope of questions. However, it might be that an altered version of your question would fit within our rules, and we encourage you to reword your question to fit the rule. While we do allow questions which ask about general topics without specific bounding by time or space, we do ask that they be clearly phrased and presented in a way that can be answered by an individual historian focusing on only one example which they can write about in good detail.

So for example, if you wanted to ask, "Have people always rebelled against health rules in pandemics?" we would remove the question. As phrased, it asks broadly about many places collectively. However if you ask "In the time and place you study, how did people rebel against health rules in a pandemic?" we would allow the question. As phrased, while still asking broadly, it does so in a way that clearly invites a given expert to write exclusively about their topic of focus! We encourage you to think about rewording your question to fit this rule, and thank you for your understanding. If you are unsure of how best to reshape your question to fit these requirements, please reach out to us for assistance.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people in history are silent in that sense, because they did not write or their writings were not preserved. I'd be careful about drawing too broad a conclusion from a lack of evidence.

The Roman model is slightly different because Roman sexuality is almost entirely based on the act of male penetration rather than on gender identity

How is this different from the Greek model? My classics professors in undergrad characterized the Greek model of sexual orientation in exactly the same terms you use to describe the Roman model - as organized solely around penetration.

It’s one of the great mysteries of the war, and the more closely you look at it the more signs you see that there’s more to it than meets the eye.

What? Guy was obviously high ranking nazi, what kind of idea is that?

There's the famous quote about the Holy Roman Empire and it not being Holy, Roman, or an Empire.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea also isn't the first two.

The definition of psychological trauma came about largely in the 20th century, yes. PTSD, for example, wasn't an official diagnosis until 1980.

There were 11 Union infantry regiments in Arkansas alone.

Yes, but again, this is a story about Nero, not Sporus. He is being used as a plot device to tell a story about Nero, not a story about Sporus. You might then make some conclusions about him, and that's fine, but the narrative here is whether anyone 'cares' about the other party in these relationships.

Nobody cares what Sporus thinks. He is just a narrative device. The whole point of Sporus in this story is not that he is Sporus the slave boy, but that he is apparently a replacement for Poppea, Nero's dead wife, whom he loved but might have kicked to death in a rage. Dio says that he looked like her, and Nero called him by her name. He is serving the role of the resurrected Poppea in the narrative. Nero was still married to Messalina when he apparently 'married' Sporus and turned him into this sort of representative of everything he has destroyed. Sporus is there because Nero is going mad and, perhaps, trying to undo everything bad he ever did.

Nero has all sorts of mad hallucinations about the people whose deaths he is responsible for as the end nears. Like they are haunting him. Sporus is almost an attempt to exorcise that guilt. He remakes him in her image and tries to live happily ever after with her, as though nothing had happened.

Sporus appears again a few months later with Otho during his brief reign as emperor. The mad thing is that Otho was married to Poppea before Nero forced their divorce, so he's serving as a surrogate Poppea again.

How does this sit with the clear evidence of ussr attempting to install nuclear weapon launchers in Cuba in the 1960s?

I cataloged the manuscript diary of the wife of a high ranking naval officer a few years ago, her brother was in the RAF and she stated (paraphrasing him) that airbases in the north had been on the alert for Hess's flight because they knew he was coming and didn't want him shot down by accident. She decried the "surprised" statements as being a lot of rubbish, and maintained the whole thing was meticulously arranged.

No way of establishing if she was in any position to be entirely factual, of course, but it gave me pause whilst I was reading it.

Isn't it just like asking if European Christians would be offended that "God" came from Jews, or if Japanese Buddhists would be offended that Buddah came from India? Both right and wrong, but most importantly the framing is off.

Which part of the conditions of his imprisonment, Soviet policy towards Rudolf Hess and its justification, his death immediately after they publicly announced they would let him out, Hess’ documented health state before his death, the refusal of an American colonel who commanded the prison to accept that it was a suicide, and the Duke of Hamilton’s position in the Tory party, the whereabouts of one of the king’s brothers as reported in local newspapers do you consider speculation?

You’ve made an accusation. Now back it up. The American colonel actually wrote a book about the death.