I’ve always perceived the New Kingdom as having been “separated” from the cultures of the Middle and Old Kingdoms. Would Coptic speakers have been able to understand Middle Egyptian speakers?

Compared to how modern Greeks can understand the ancient Greek that was spoken and written 3,000 years ago; how would Egyptians compare?

The reason for this question is I’m currently doing some mild world building and am working on the military at the moment.

I’m aware that for something like the phalanx the lines could get fairly deep but I can’t seem to find anything on more flexible systems.

We know that Alexander the Great tried to change the language of his empire to Greek, and as a consequence all documents of civilizations he conquered were translated into Greek. So do historians and archaeologists consider this when they discover documents in Greek in Egypt, Levant, or even in Greece itself?

I can't imagine 700+ men(some number I saw in another thread) going willingly to their deaths. And it's not like they had firearms available like a more "modern" mass execution.

Was there resistance to this command? Did any of Henry's soldier or advisors object?

Napoleon wreaked havoc on countries like Prussia, Austria, Russia, Britain and others during the Coalition Wars in 1797-1814. These same countries spent uncountable blood and treasure to remove Napoleon I as leader of France. When Napoleon III declared himself President for Life and subsequently Emperor, were any of these same powers worried? Or had historical memory of the Napoleonic Wars faded enough that they didn't care? Or are there other factors involved? Thanks!

I'm asking about Canada because I'm Canadian, but feel free to discuss other British colonial possessions like India or South Africa, because the concept is the same.

I'm wondering if Canada was able to set their own policies with regard to conscription, arms manufacturing, etc, if Britain controlled the whole process, or some combination thereof.

Also, did Canadian officers have any control over the battles they participate in? I'm thinking specifically of Dieppe where Canadians were slaughtered in a half-hearted D-Day attempt. It seems like the British just sent their "expenadable" colonial soliders to die probing defences. Was this the case at all, or did Canada have a bigger role in choosing where to commit soldiers?

I've touched on a few subjects, any elaboration about anything would be greatly appreciated! Thanks for reading.

Say for example I was a soldier in the First Crusade and have decided to make a life for myself in Jerusalem. For almost 90 years the kingdom was held by Christians which means 3 generations of people could have been born in the area. Does my Western Culture start to dominate or is this still very much a 'Middle Eastern' place to be? Is there an influx of migrants from the West during these 90 years or is it just soldiers/pilgrims? And do they/their descendants decide to stay when the city falls back into Muslim hands? If I'm born in the city, do I have any idea what life would have been like back in the West and do I yearn for it?

Edit: for clarity, and I should have said this before, my question is more about when the term "white" came into common usage to identify Europeans and/or people of Caucasian ancestry.

Just examples of other cultures methods of measuring temperature. Also would be interesting to know how celsius became the standard for nearly every country (except that one).

Thanks!

Like any concepts or storys maybe? I heard, the bible stole from some other religions too but I am specifically interested in the greek mythologie.

I saw a pretty interesting video of a samurai cutting some bamboo and it made me think about what swords look like after battles. I mean we have all these swords that are super sharp today and competitions where they do what I saw in that video, but you don't see people fighting with their swords. I mean like we see in the movies, the swords can't be that sharp after smashing a couple other pieces of metal edge on. Maybe swords back in the day where much harder and less sharp or something. But we see movies of medieval times where people will battle maybe upwards of an hour with their sword smashing people and stabbing people. How realistic is that? How long would it take to fix the sword afterwards? I suppose too it was a natural progression to the times of the "musketeers" or whatever (I can't presume to guess the years), we're swords were more for poking than slashing. Where am I completely wrong?

I know the nazis occupied the country and I assume they had soldiers under control and without weapons, but couldn't the Allies have freed / armed them? Whenever I read (not that much tbh) about the British and Americans fighting in France I don't see many mentions of the French, except for some support provided by the resistance.

I'm curious how armies in the BC era knew who was their enemy and who was their friend? I know some larger empires like Rome had uniforms but smaller kingdoms surely did not or could not afford to outfit all of their soldiers with a uniform. Is there any documented cases of friendly fire in ancient times?

I know that the PBS special on the American Civil War was a popular success during the 1990s, but what was the scholarly assessment?

I can't seem to find many anecdotal stories or detailed descriptions of Singapore's POV so I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me.

After the USSR dissolved, there was a lot of conflict that had happened due to the messy ways that the Soviet Union destroyed its borders to the point where conflict has gone everywhere from Transnistria wanting to have its own republic to the Nagorno Karabakh region which has had its fair share of wars and conflicts. In 1990, there was even a conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan over two cities.

Of course I don't want to touch around political events today. I wanted to learn more about the historical reasons why this is the case. What was the Soviet Union thinking when it was drawing its borders and did they consider the possibility of ethnic conflict between republics during its lifetime?

I’ve come across a lot of stuff about the role of the potato in demographic spikes (and as precursors to industrialisation) across Europe following the colonisation of the Americas, and am wondering if a similar effect was felt in Asian societies, and if not, why it wasn’t.