Despite centuries of enduring Spanish colonial rule (and the adoption of Spanish naming customs) in the Philippines, Tagalog remains the primary language and very few people speak Spanish today. What made the Philippines different from Spanish America, where Spanish supplanted virtually all indigenous languages and remains the primary language of communication for most people?

I'm from New Orleans, Louisiana, born and raised, and lived through Katrina. With the passed threat of Hurricane Marco and the current threat of Hurricane Laura, it makes me wonder how these types of storms affected early settlement.

I've taken the standard history classes in high school and a variety of literature courses in college including New Orleans Lit. That I can recall, not once did our history books mention hurricanes in the Southeast, nor did an author that we covered write about hurricanes or preparations for the big storms.

Between the 16th and 20th centuries: What precautions did the earlier settlements/towns/cities take when hurricane season loomed? How did they handle flooding? How did they handle reconstruction? Did hurricanes ever influence politics, local or otherwise?

I'm happy to read anything, if you want to leave sources for me to scour through instead of paraphrasing this stuff. I know I'm asking plenty broad questions.

I can only imagine that our current systems (radar, pumps, evacuation, etc), although far from perfect, are much better than what they were able to do, yet these storms can still be so devastating.

How were they treated immediately after the civil war compared to during the culture revolution and recent times. Did NRA veterans receive pensions and commendations comparable to their communist counterparts?

We now know what was at stake on June 6th 1944, but my question is. Did the average allied(or Axis) soldier know what was at stake on this battle?

Spain was just a random country due to my admittedly limited knowledge of classic literature, but, seeing as how the whole concept of IP law is (relatively) recent in comparison to civil and common law, how did authors such as Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Shakespeare and the so managed to ensure their work was respected and duly compensated (economically and credit-wise)?

I have been reading alot about the Napoleonic Wars and wanted to no more about the uniforms and rank. Specifically how was rank displayed? I know it has something to do with the epaulettes (wanted more clarification on how epaulettes worked) and/or were there ranks pinned to thier collars like how some militaries do today?

My understanding of the Ptolemaic Egypt was that a relatively small Greek population dominated affairs of business and state, while the native Egyptian population was kept in a state of semi-slavery, akin to what they had previously experienced under other dynasties. To me, this dynamic seems as if it would come along with a great deal of racism and discrimination. However, the generation of a syncretic, Graeco-Egyptian religion was pursued as a matter of policy by the Ptolemaic government. Per Wikipedia:

“To legitimize their rule and gain recognition from native Egyptians, the Ptolemies adopted the title of pharaoh and had themselves portrayed on public monuments in Egyptian style and dress; otherwise, the monarchy rigorously maintained its Hellenistic character and traditions.[4] The kingdom had a complex government bureaucracy that exploited the country’s vast economic resources to the benefit of a Greek ruling class, which dominated military, political, and economic affairs, and which rarely integrated into Egyptian society and culture. Native Egyptians maintained power over local and religious institutions, and only gradually accrued power in the bureaucracy, provided they Hellenized.[7]”.

I would guess that the public-facing nativization of the Ptolemys’s regime was at least in part an effort to appease the masses and prevent things like peasant revolts. However, it seems to me that this ideological choice implies a certain degree of respect for the native population on the part of the government, which seemingly contradicts a Hellenizing, Greek-dominated society. My question is therefore how these dynamics can be resolved. Were Egyptians viewed as being equal under the law to Greeks? If not, were Egyptians heavily discriminated against, or alternatively, were they given specific rights, for example, to protect their native practices?

On twitter somebody tweeted ">sociology" and one of the responses was "You can thank sociology for you being given the right to go to school."

It struck me as odd so I wanted to ask, specifically in the USA, where did our right to education come from? Who made it so we all have a right to education?

And to elaborate on why I thought the response of "sociology" was odd, is because my impression is that sociology is just a field which deals with the study and analysis of human behaviour; so I don't see how a field like that would give us rights; wouldn't our rights to things come from lawmakers or politicians? Unless you want to say they just influenced the lawmakers, in which case wouldn't political philosophers have a much larger impact on how our right to education developed and formed in the USA?

tl;dr - Where did our right to education come from? Who do we "thank"? Is it a single person, a group of people, or an entire field? Or a combination of those?

I have a few books about the Anglo-Saxons, i have a book about old english, i have the Anglo-Saxon chronicles. Still, i'm not sure where to start! If you could help that would be great. Sorry this isn't a question about history.

So I was watching a video about the battles in Africa during world war 2 and in it Rommel was quoted to say that the Italian soldiers under his command were “good soldiers but had bad officers” so which of the Italian officers were not corrupt and bad at their job?

I've recently started researching Rommel and his military career. There's no questioning his (mostly) successful conquests of course. Where I'm confused at is his reputation mainly during the second world war? I've read statements absolving him of any wrongdoing, giving to his undying loyalties for his homeland. On the flipside, fairly credible sources (I think?) charge Rommel with the same antisemitism that the rest of the NSDAP had. I wanted to ask y'all myself to see what you guys thought. Where could I find the most credible evidence for him? Thanks guys.

TL;DR Was Rommel cool or not?

After spending some time studying the Nazi concept and attempted implementation of their eugenics program, everything I have come across identifies the ideal, Aryan race as being that of blue eyes and blonde hair with minimal, or no, genetic defects. How did Nazi leaders, and specifically Hitler, reconcile the fact that they had dark hair and dark eyes?

I know this might sound like a silly and stupid question; I know every particular of ww1 and ww2, but nothing about the napoleonic wars, I liked at some maps and it seems that the attack consisted in a main spearhead directed towards moskow. I know that the russian did all of that scorched earth tactics, but since the French had no rear guard couldn't the Russians just cut them of from behind leading to the whole french army being encircled? Or this wasn't even something that one could think of at that era? The french were arleady really bad on supplies and cutting them of from behind would have resulted in them having no supplies at all. So why didn't they do that? Sorry if this might sound dumb, as I said, I always studied the 20th century and almost nothing regarding the past ones

Recently, I was struck by inspiration for a creative project that I've been working on for a couple of months now. Due to its nature, it requires some pretty thorough and detailed worldbuilding. The primary inspiration for much of the setting is the Italian Renaissance, with special regards to the trade and politics of the time. I've done a lot of surface level research--articles online, etc. but I'd like to dig deeper to find inspiration to really flesh things out. The economics of the world and how things got to where they are are the central focus of a lot of the project, so understanding the background of what influences the aesthetic and cultural decisions of the inspiration is very key to me.

Any recommendations are welcome! While I know Italy is a sizable place with a LOT of history, so if it's a more broad look at the key events that is fine, but for drilling down I'd love to get into more specifics on the history of Venice, which is a major touchstone for my inspiration at the current iteration of the project.

Here's a few of the topics I'm interested in reading on

• Italian Renaissance History & Politics
• Trade and Economics of 15th-18th Century
• History & Politics Specifically about Venice up through the 18th Century
• The different cultural norms across Renaissance Italy
• Anything related to Italian navies & maritime history for that period

I hope this hasn't been too broad, and I'm sure that there's a wealth of information out there. I appreciate in advance any who post suggestions!

What type of Europe did they hope to see after the war? What plans were in place to govern or rule after winning?

Could the ancient flood myths simply be humanity’s diary during, say, the Younger Dryas Impact? Or some other cataclysmic event that we know of?

I’m curious how American political philosophy shifted from being hugely opposed to a federal standing army to keeping up the largest federal standing army in the world by far. What caused this shift in attitude? I also would like to know why the militia system that was in place in the colonial and post-revolutionary period fell out of style, eventually becoming the National Guard, which is now effectively no longer under state control. Why doesn’t America have state militias anymore?

My understanding is that before Israel started existing very few people spoke Hebrew as it was basically a dead language, and then lots of immigrants who didn't know Hebrew came to Israel. Presumably, due to the formation of a functioning Israeli society made up of all these predominantly European immigrants who had professional jobs and stuff all of them most have learned how to speak a very high level of Hebrew in a very short space of time. My question is how did this happen? In addition, I don't know much about Hebrew but it seems like a fairly complex language that looks nothing like European languages both in text and in spoken tongue, why can't we do whatever the people of Israel did with their language with other foreign languages because they take ages to learn.