It is to my understanding that during Roman times, the lands to the north of imperial borders like Germania were frigid, covered with forests, unfriendly to agriculture, and overall not worth settling. Yet in modern times, northern countries like Germany and the Netherlands are some of the wealthiest and most densely populated parts of Europe. What changed that allowed these lands to become so prosperous and fertile?

Im talking about the arab world,a part of Africa,Iran,Pakistan,Indonesia and Turkey.Dont mean to offend anyone here,just curious.

I'm an American. As you can imagine, discussing politics recently has been a plague ridden nightmare of revisionist history. It has become clear that my cursory, non academic knowledge of world and American history leaves me decidedly unprepared to weather most heated conversations.

Some interesting writers I've studied include Howard Zinn and Christopher Hitchens. I want to have a factual knowledge of the entirety of American history, such that I could formulate valid arguments to the complexity of their understandings of the past. And while I understand that I am unlikely to learn enough to argue so eloquently as they could, I'm at a total loss for where I should even start.

I'm terrified of walking down someone else's rabbit hole under the guise of a factual representation of historical events. As I cannot afford university again, after having chosen a scientific field of study, how can I best substitute a proper academic career in history with equivalently rigorous studies? Which sources can I trust to be absolutely factual in their teachings of America's past, and perhaps the greater history of the world? Aside from reading journals and diaries written by historical figures themselves and attempting to corroborate the reality common in their accounts, I don't know of any other way to glean an accurate picture of American history. I'm hoping you all could point me to some universally trusted sources to help me out by recommending books or other methods. I know I'm asking a lot, so I'll appreciate any advice you can give.

I have been reading an article on safety coffins becoming popular in the 19th century. Were they a bit of a novelty or were they actually used. Did they ever save anyone that was buried alive?

Can anyone explain simply what each side was fighting for during the bakumatsu period in Japan? For the longest time I assumed that it was about modernizing vs keeping the country closed and that the Imperialists were for modernization, but recently learned that both sides were anti-foreigner and the imperialists changed their mind after the war. So what was the war really about?

After dominating Europe, did nazi politicians and commanders, and Hitler consider world domination? Did they have any long term goals if they defeated the UUSR, UK and US? How did they imagine the future for Germany if they were victorious with Barbarossa?

I'm an amateur religious studies buff and religious studies major. My impression of the three major Abrahamic faiths (ie Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) is that religious tolerance (not outright wiping out all religious minorities) was more or less grudgingly accepted in Abrahamic traditions. But religious acceptance, ie the idea that no one should face second class citizenship or discrimination for their beliefs does not seem to factor in to the thought processes of faith thinkers until fairly recently.

I've recently taken a class on interfaith cooperation. Nowadays many religious leaders support full religious tolerance/acceptance, but this seems to be a relatively modern thing and I was wondering what the roots are?

I've heard that hirohito didn't actually want war with the Americans, but he couldn't control his generals. Was that true?

I recently fell down a rabbit hole -- as you do in 2020 -- and wound up with an extremely specific question:

So, the Tichett culture in southwest Mauritania, Africa appears to have emerged from the Sahara as a fully-formed sedentary group of farmers and herders around 2,000BC. They built a city over dozens of hectares, complete with social stratification. They thrived until 500 BC, when climate change forced them to abandon their cities to the Sahara.

My question then is, are we sure climate change isn't what happened the first time too? Geologists have definitively proven that the ancient Tamanrasset River Delta ran dry in Mauritania around the same time the Tichett appear. We know where the dry riverbeds are. Has anyone shown any interest in scouting the ancient riverbanks for signs of human habitation on a large scale? Other areas of the world had advanced proto-urban cultural sites in the same time period as the African Humid Period. Could it be possible that the Tichett "emerged" as a complex society because they weren't new, but simply fleeing from the Sahara that would continue to chase them?

Were they generally supportive or against the Austro-Hungarian government?

Imperial Russia is often depicted as a quasi medieval feudal state ruled by an incompetent ruler, but after a bit of research I found out that under Tsar Nicholas II Russia had begun to industrialize very quickly and was seen as a serious threat by both Great Britain and Imperial Germany. How do modern historians view his reign and how did the perception of tsarist Russia in academia change through the last century?