Siggi und Babarras (1963-1965) is a German "translation" of a few Asterix comics made in Western Germany. It changed the Gauls into ancient Germans. They also reworked the stories by sometimes rearranging the panel's orders, and changed the dialogs to turn the whole thing into a jingoist pamphlet. For instance, the protagonists are a metaphor of Germans defending Germany against both the Americans and the Soviets Bloc, Obelix's menhir is a metaphor of Germany guilt complex for WW2 (and in this version he dislikes carrying it).

A few of the names' changes:

• Siggi: Asterix
• Babarras: Obelix
• Konradin (after Prime Minister Konrad Adenauer): Getafix
• Bonnhalla (after Bonn - Western Germany's capital city - and Valhalla): the Gauls' village
• Natolia (after NATO): Rome

The cover I used is the one for their version of Asterix and the Goths. The title literally means Siggi and the Ostrogoths (who here stand for the Eastern Germans). The board on the border ("To the Western sector") here refers the line separating West and East Berlin (it's the border between the Gaul and the Germanic territories in the original book).

Beside this one, they also adapted Asterix the Gaul and Asterix and the Golden Sickle.

Uderzo and Goscinny obviously didn't take it well when they learnt about a translation which actually turned their comic series into far-right propaganda, and revoked the published's right to sell this heresy. The original authors eventually greenlit an other (and actually faithful) German translation later in the 1960s.

From top to bottom:

• The original: classic Roman Empire
• The sequel: Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire
• The prequel: Alexander the Great
• The villain's spin-off: Ottoman Empire
• The weird reboot: Holy Roman Empire (also works with Tsarist Russia)
• The short-lived reboot: Napoleon I
• The bad reboot: Benito Mussolini

Context:Franklin played many roles during his long life: printer and publisher, civic activist, revolutionary and statesman, scientist and philosopher, diplomat, and sage. Given the significance of his political and civic activities and his experimentation with electricity, it is little wonder that Franklin's medical interests have attracted less attention. Nonetheless, despite his lack of formal training, medicine was prominent among Franklin's interests. His writings ranged over a number of topics, from treatment of the common cold to promotion of exercise and a moderate diet. With his connections to prominent physicians on both sides of the Atlantic and with his published works widely read, Franklin's thoughts on health and medicine found a broad contemporary audience. He was also a medical activist and inventor, championing smallpox inoculation, taking a leading role in founding Pennsylvania Hospital (the first such institution in the British North American colonies), and inventing devices like bifocal glasses.

Through his almanac and other writings, Benjamin Franklin exerted his greatest influence on the medical sphere. With numerous well-informed correspondents—including physicians and scientists on two continents—and, as a skilled writer, he was capable of writing letters, articles, collections of sayings and other works filled with medical commentary. These covered a wide range of subjects including electrical treatments for paralysis.

Medical uses of electricity were much discussed during Franklin's lifetime. It was known, from early in the eighteenth century, that an electrical shock could cause involuntarily twitching and contraction of muscles. Many people thus hoped that ‘electrical fire’ would provide a cure for paralysis. They believed that sending a charge through the affected limbs might increase blood flow, regenerate muscle and restore movement or physical control.

Franklin was doubtful about the usefulness of electrical treatment for palsy and paralysis and never promoted himself as an electrical therapist. Nonetheless, because of his reputation as an electrical innovator, he was from time to time contacted by people seeking electrical therapy. Using an electrostatic generator (in which electrical charge was created by rubbing material against a mounted glass ball or cylinder turned by a crank) and a Leyden jar (which stored the electrical energy), Franklin obliged those patients who came to him desiring electrical therapies. He described these treatments in a letter to Sir John Pringle, dated 21 December 1757.

Franklin also concerned himself with medical problems more removed from his own scientific expertise. He wrote about lead poisoning on several occasions, in particular about a disease known as the dry-gripes (or dry-bellyache) that had plagued Europe and the colonies for years. Franklin had not yet left Boston when, in 1723 the Massachusetts colonial legislature passed a bill outlawing the use of lead in the coils and heads of stills. Observance of this law led to vastly decreased incidence of the dry-gripes, as the population drank less and less lead-contaminated rum.

In a letter to his friend, Philadelphia physician Cadwalader Evans, Franklin wrote that he was certain that the symptoms known as dry-bellyache were always the result of lead exposure, whether in food or drink or from exposure through trades that used lead.⁴ In his correspondence with Dr George Baker, Franklin advanced this idea and thus helped Baker discover the aetiology of the Devonshire Colic, a condition the symptoms of which included weakened muscles, loss of weight and pallor. It was widespread in Baker's native Devonshire; Baker suspected lead-contaminated cider was the cause, and his discussions with Franklin helped confirm his hypothesis. Baker eventually found that millwheels that were used to crush the apples were bound together with poured molten lead. He credited Franklin with his assistance in this discovery on several occasions.

Many of Franklin's medical writings showed the same spirit of public activism that characterized his civic and national projects. He repeatedly used his skills with pen and press in support of innovations that could make a difference in the public health. Most significant, perhaps, was his lifelong endorsement of smallpox inoculation.

Inoculation spread rapidly in North America and Europe after its introduction into western medicine in the 1720s. The practice involved exposing healthy individuals to the disease by abrading the skin and introducing a small amount of morbid matter. Typically the patient would contract a similarly mild instance of the disease and, once recovered, would have permanent immunity. Cases contracted the natural way would often leave victims disfigured and had a significant mortality rate.

Franklin wrote articles promoting inoculation and its safety as early as 1731. His support of inoculation grew after the heartbreaking loss of his 6-year-old son, Francis Folger Franklin, to smallpox in 1736. Franklin had planned to inoculate the boy at the time of an outbreak, but was unable to do so because the child was in a weakened state from another illness. Critics of inoculation suggested that Franklin's son had been a victim of the procedure, and Franklin was forced to publish an article in his paper, The Pennsylvania Gazette, insisting that his son had contracted a natural case of the disease.⁵

Throughout his life, Franklin monitored the success of inoculation in several colonial cities, and shared information with his correspondents about the procedure's extremely low mortality rates and the decreased smallpox incidence that resulted.⁶ The statistics he compiled were useful for Some Account of the Success of Inoculation for the Small-pox in England and America (Figure 2), a pamphlet he wrote with physician William Heberden. While in London, Franklin encouraged Heberden to write briefly on the value of inoculation and to include instructions by which any educated layman could inoculate his own family. Franklin wrote the preface and had 1500 copies printed and sent to the colonies for free distribution.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1299336/

Context: The Edict of Expulsion is a royal decree expelling all Jews from the Kingdom of England that was issued by Edward I on 18 July 1290; it was the first time a European state is known to have permanently banned their presence.^\a]) The date of issuance was most likely chosen because it was a Jewish holy day, Tisha B'Av, which commemorates the destruction of Jerusalem and other disasters which the Jewish people have experienced. Edward told the sheriffs of all counties he wanted all Jews expelled before All Saints' Day (1 November) that year.

Jews were allowed to leave England with cash and personal possessions, but the debts which they were owed, their homes, and other buildings—including synagogues and cemeteries—were forfeited to the king. While there are no accounts of attacks on Jews during their departure on land, there were acts of piracy in which Jews died, and others were drowned as a result of being forced to cross the English Channel at a time of year when dangerous storms are common. There is evidence from personal names of Jewish refugees who settled in Paris and other parts of France, as well as Italy, Spain and Germany. Documents which were taken abroad by the Anglo-Jewish diaspora have been found as far away as Cairo. Jewish properties were sold for the benefit of the Crown, Queen Eleanor and selected individuals, who were given grants of property.

By the time he returned to England from Gascony in 1289, Edward I was deeply in debt.^\39]) At the same time, his experiment to convert the Jews to Christianity and removing their dependence on lending at interest had failed; the fifteen-year period in which Jews were allowed to lease farms had ended. Also, raising significant sums of money from the Jewish population had become increasingly difficult because they had been repeatedly overtaxed.^\40])

On 14 June 1290, Edward summoned representatives of the knights of the shires, the middling landowners, to attend Parliament by 15 July. These knights were the group that was most hostile to Jews and usury. On 18 June, Edward sent secret orders to the sheriffs of cities with Jewish residents to seal the archae containing records of Jewish debts. The reason for this is disputed; it could represent preparation for a further tallage to be paid by the Jewish population or it could represent a preparatory step for expulsion.^\41]) Parliament met on 15 July; there is no record of the Parliamentary debates so it is uncertain whether the Crown offered the Expulsion of the Jews in return for a vote of taxation or whether Parliament asked for it as a concession. Both views are argued. The link between these seems certain given the evidence of contemporaneous chronicles and the speed at which orders to expel the Jews of England were made, possibly after an agreement was reached.^\42]) The taxation granted by Parliament to Edward was very high; at £116,000 it was probably the highest of the Middle Ages.^\43]) In gratitude, the Church later voluntarily agreed to pay tax of a tenth of its revenue.^\44])

On 18 July, the Edict of Expulsion was issued.^\45]) The text of the edict is lost.^\46]) On the Hebrew calendar, 18 July of that year was 9 Av (Tisha B'Av) 5050, commemorating the fall of the Temple at Jerusalem; it is unlikely to be a coincidence.^\47]) According to Roth, it was noted "with awe" by Jewish chroniclers.^\48]) On the same day, writs were sent to sheriffs saying all Jews were to leave by All Saints' Day, 1 November 1290, and outlining their duties in the matter.^\49])

Proclamations ordering the population not to "injure, harm, damage or grieve" the departing Jews were made. Wardens at the Cinque Ports were told to make arrangements for the Jews' safe passage and cheap fares for the poor, while safe conduct was arranged for dignitaries,^\40]) such as the wealthy financier Bonamy of York.^\50]) There were limits on the property Jews could take with them. Although a few favoured persons were allowed to sell their homes before they left,^\51]) the vast majority had to forfeit any outstanding debts, homes and immobile property, including synagogues and cemeteries.^\40])

The edict was not an isolated incident, but instead was the culmination of increasing antisemitism in England. During the reigns of Henry III and Edward I, anti-Jewish prejudice was used as a political tool by opponents of the Crown, and later by Edward and the state itself. Edward took measures to claim credit for the expulsion and to define himself as the protector of Christians against Jews, and following his death, he was remembered and praised for the expulsion. The expulsion embedded antisemitism into the English culture of the medieval and early modern periods; such antisemitic beliefs included the belief that England was unique because no Jews lived there. The expulsion edict remained in force during the rest of the Middle Ages, but it was overturned in 1656, more than 365 years later, during the Protectorate, when Oliver Cromwell informally permitted the resettlement of the Jews in England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion

Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast described King as a party animal rage machine who was nevertheless a brilliant manager. So...