I do know for example that they were exempt by most Christian rules like lending money or they were allowed to sell stolen goods in second hand without persecution. Also they had a higher standart of cleaning themself and were therefore less prone to be ill. This would be my explanation, but I do fell like this can't be all there is to it.

My question is, why after the Roman empire broke up did the Latin world never unify again, and ultimately Latin culture either gets replaced or fractures.

But after China gets fractured again and again their culture stays relatively united, and China as a political entity returns again and again

Was it because Rome was less Culturally homogenous?
Did the Huns and Goths directly contribute to the destruction of a united Latin world?
Did the Mulsim Conquest of Iberia and Northern Africa affect this at all?

Why didn't Tribes invade and settle China when it was politically divided at various points like the Huns and Goths?

​

Maybe I fundamentally misunderstand what happened in China or Rome, and my question is flawed because of this, if so can you tell me where I'm wrong?

I am watching the new show "Barbarians" right now and I am little bit confused. We know he was an equite in that time but how high rank it was compared to other Romans military ranks in post-marian reforms army (9AC) ?

I have heard stories of how in early US and colonial elections, the practice of the day was for politicians to go through the town, and throw a giant party, with plenty of free booze, before directing the eligible voters to the polls.

I don't think this would fly today, at least sponsored by politicians and their respective parties. However if someone wanted to experience this idea, for .... reasons. What and how did they drink?

My first thought was that it might be similar to british navy grog, but I could see that importing rum or molasses would have been a non starter for colonials because of the benefit to the British government. So to me, it makes sense that they would have used apple jack or grain whiskey as the base spirit. Maybe they would have served it up like grog, since punch makes sense for serving a crowd.

TLDR: What do we know about what early US/colonial voters drank on election day, in days long past, and how did it change over time? (Wanting to pretend George W. is in town tonight).

I’ve become very interested in the napoleonic wars, and I was wondering about the specifics of the combat. I found plenty of information on long range fights, but Couldn’t find out how long Bayonet fights lasted.

What were the political ideologies of the revolutionaries in Hungary? Were they seeking to move Hungary's form of communism to be something more like Titoism? Were they trying to move away from socialism in general or just reform it? Was the revolution of 1956 influential at all to the political aspirations of those response for the Prague Spring?

Was it legally possible for a free black man to own slaves? Do we know any prominent examples?

Viking Age Scandinavia is not something I study and I have very little information about gender norms in the Viking Age. As far as I know, female explorers existed but what about female warriors? Did they exist in real life or only in Scandinavian mythology? And if they did exist, how common were they?

In the Video Game „Ghost of Tsushima“ the Samurai of said Island expect the Mongol Invaders with only 80 men at the beach in Komoda. Now I’m by no means an expert for this period of time and know only vaguely of the 2 Mongol Invasions of Japan.

Also I’m aware that a Video Game of course doesn’t necessarily needs to represent every aspect of history with 100% detail, but I’m also aware that in Japanese History only in „special periods“ like the Sengoku-Jidai non-noble/ non-Samurai citizens were armed and fought, atleast as far as I know.

Now my question is

1. if the representation of only 80 men for an Island like Tsushima is accurate,
2. if those 80 men would have actually fought against an enemy so superior in numbers like the Mongols were and
3. why Japanese Rulers only relied on their noble retainers for war when we have a similar situation in late medieval Europe where a „war chaste“ like knights were meant to fight the wars but were eventually replaced by non-noble combatants.

In the film it is shown that Alan Turing used the cracked information to decide which German attacks should be prevented, while letting others occur without intervention. I am wondering if this is an accurate depiction of true events, and whether Turing really 'played God' while deciding how to act based on the information, or is this an exaggeration of his true control?

Also, did Turing get any recognition during his lifetime for his contribution to the war, or did the secrecy of the work prevent his efforts being recognised?

The title should be pretty self-explanatory. Unfortunately, most biographies I find focus quite a lot on his campaigns, but I already know quite a bit about these.

I was more interested in his domestic policy in France, regarding economic policy (i read he tried to stimulate a french industrial revolution), law making and general rule. Another thing I’d like to know about is his private life. So starting from young napoleon all the way to his court.

Many thanks!

Today there are options like absentee, mail-in, early voting and stuff like that. Even election day polls have a lot of complicated procedures in place that I can't imagine were all there 200 some years ago. Were there measures in place to prevent ineligible voters from voting? Stuff along those lines I can't imagine there being a huge amount of effort put into, but that's coming from my 2020 brain.

Any answers are helpful! Thanks in advance

I'd like to do some reading on the period of roughly 500AD - 1300AD, concerning Eastern Europe. This is where the Kievan Rus', Cumans, Bulgars etc inhabited. Just roughly these dates is fine.

I haven't come across any introductions to this that are available as a book.

Would someone be able to recommend some reading for an enthusiastic amateur?

Many thanks.

I fell into a rabbithole on the Internet after I saw an youtube video about Oppenheimer. I really like psychology, so im wondering what influence did for example Hinduism have on him? I dont really understand why he made the Atom Bomb either, but he facinates me! There isnt a lot of information about him on the Internet, so now im frustrated that I cant come to an conclusion.

Hey, I have been delving into ancient history quite a bit recently, mainly Greek and Roman times (~700 BC up to the collapse of the Roman Empire). I would like to know if you can point me in the right direction in terms of books that aren't biased by their authors one way or another. What I mean is, a book that best describes /shows/ talks about those times periods. I've picked up a few books from Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca. Cambridge Ancient History V. I want to grow that list. That time period is extremely interesting to me, but from my little research on "must read" books, the book description for many books tends to be influenced by the world view of the author of that time period. What I want is simply the facts, so I can make up my own mind.

Thanks.

I recently saw a youtube video, which stated that medics were explicitly targeted on the eastern front.

How was this on other theatres of war?
Was the average soldier briefed by their CO's and NCO's to not shoot at medics and were there inner repercussions if a soldier did fire at a medic?

Thanks for your answers!