I've been reading and learning a lot about this period of time,but I haven't seen anything about their meals and choices of foods according to the part of day.

A lot of the early English kingdoms were named after the saxons. For example: Essex, Wessex, Sussex, the county of Middlesex and so on.

I know the Anglosaxons were made up of several peoples besides the saxons, but why or when did they lose their importance to not be refferenced in the name of England?

Is there any connection between the Iberian Peninsula and the pre-Georgian state of the Kingdom of Iberia (Caucasus)? Or do they just happen to have the same name?

I’m just really curious about these centuries of warfare that always seem to bet he pursuits of noble vanity and monarch punching matches. How would I, as an average ‘citizen’ of one of these states view the constant war. Would I appreciate the political necessity or resent the cruel vanity or the elite? Would I even know a big important war was happening?

Whenever I see portraits back in the 18th century, they always have white hair. I don't know why they have white hair. Probably y'all be like, well its obvious, the person in the portrait is old. No! They are not old! They are young! Why do people have white hair in old 18th century portraits?

Exactly the title.

From what I understand, a crucial element to the Manchu conquest of China was the defection of Han Chinese to the Manchu side, similar to Chinese defecting to the Mongols.

However, given Manchu policies such as the enforcement of the queue hairstyle over traditional Chinese hair and the fact the Qing were foreign conquerors, basically actions that go against Chinese culture and values, why and how many Han Chinese defected? Also, was it a critical element to Manchu success or was the Ming dynasty a goner at that point?

When you watch older movies and TV, theres always a stereotypical homeless guy burning a barrel fire under an underpass, or people burning barrel fires in the hood like it normal. Ive lived around major homeless centers like Seattle for the majority of my life and have never seen this. Am I missing something?

As someone who supported the use of the atomic bomb in ww2 one argument I heard against it was that it was the Soviets who caused the Japanese to surrender. And when I looked into it I read some stuff along the lines of "Japan was scared of getting invaded by the USSR and it was less humiliating to just say that a nuclear bomb caused the surrender than an atomic bomb" and how "the atomic bomb was a lie all along" and stuff like that.

Except the issue I have here is first off the facts were on the same day the Soviets invaded Manchuria and succeeded and the bombing of Nagasaki. That's the only facts I found. That's just the Soviets invading Japanese occupied China. Not the mainland islands. Like the US were originally going to do with operation downfall.

Even if that was the case does the USSR have the naval strength on that side of the region to launch a full fledged invasion on Japan? Most of the politics, economics, and population are in the European part from what I understand. Not the eastern part. It would've been difficult or expensive to get one navy fleet from the western side of USSR to eastern side when you factor in Geography.

If that was the case, why would the USSR plan to invest money, resource, and war efforts on it's eastern region to build a navy and not the western region as they were fighting the Nazis?

I honestly don't even know and I'm so confused. I'm getting told completely different things from differnet sources.

After all, they signed a pact with Britain, not the Colonies. And I doubt that the colonists could’ve fought Spain right after winning against British?

Edit: How do I get the Love and Friendship flair to show up?

I've tried googling the question and almost every site I click on asks me to subscribe to read more. The ones that do explain are too far above my pay grade. Maybe try to ELI5 for me? Trying to understand the difference and how they relate to modern political parties. Thanks

Edit - Got a message from mods about the ELI5 I put in description. I didn't post there because I didn't see a flair option for politics and thought it would get removed. I'm not necessarily asking for a ELI5 just to break it down for me because a lot of the words and phrases used when describing these 2 different groups seem conflicting and confusing to me.

From INTERPRETATION: QIN HISTORY IN LIGHT OF  NEW EPIGRAPHIC SOURCES, by Yuri Pines.

Even the frequent military conflicts between the nobles did not decrease their strong feeling of commonality: the war was, for the most part, conceived of as a mere game, a noble play.

Thanks for any answers.

First and foremost is it true that teaching at oxford began before these three cultures? It looks as though the Smithsonian says that teaching began at Oxford around 1096 before any of the three cultures mentioned above. Why was there such a difference in the cultures? The Easter Island culture supposedly hadn’t even discovered the wheel yet. Is there a major factor as to the differences?

I've heard that some historians believe Peter Salem, the African American freedman who fought in the Revolutionary War, might have been Muslim. What evidence is there to support this?

It seems pretty standard for papers in Britain to have a separate Sunday edition with some level of editorial independence, be they traditionally respectable broadsheets or tabloids. What is the origin of this?

It's one thing to imagine turning US dollars into European currencies in the 19th century, but I have to imagine that getting remittances home for Chinese workers in the US during the same period was probably way more difficult. How would a Chinese immigrant to the US accomplish this?

It seems that up until some part of the 20th century hats were viewed as essential part of clothing, like shoes, hat-making was a huge industry. While earlier everybody needed a hat at some point it then became optional (like base-caps etc.) and even viewed as eccentric. When did this change happen and why?

As we go through this pandemic, I've been very interested in other times of pandemic throughout history. What media (non-fiction books, documentaries, etc) give the most reliable information on the bubonic plague in europe?

I am not asking about the current controversy this event is being compared to, instead I am simply curious to learn about this event of which I didn't know until recently