How is Gibbon regarded in his analysis, and what are some criticisms or praises that historians give to his “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”?

I can't find any account on why the few 'communes' fell apart.

I just started reading "A Short Philosophy on Birds" and it highlighted how ingrained it is my (our) culture. Where does this come from and is it unique for the West?

In modern America (especially in the eduction system), indigenous people are often portrayed as having an intense spiritual relationship with nature, with the depictions of native lifestyle taught at school often sounding like Tolkien writing about elves. Taking into account the incredible diversity within native lifestyles and religions is there any historical reason why North American natives are portrayed as such, or is it a gross simplification that creates a simple narrative.

All those Shermans or T-34s were designed by small team of like 6 to 10 man in very civil looking buildings with no protection other than 2 guards in the door. However those humble centers were the most important to war efforts of those nations. Why Germans didn't try something crazy with those places?

During the Cold war, the Communists often mentioned that former Nazis and Nazi collaborators were employed in Western Germany, France and other countries. On the one hand, it seems like propaganda. On the other, looking up various Nazi war criminals many got off easy or were amnestied in Germany and other countries after the war (the Peck panel) while in Poland, Yugoslavia and the USSR the Nazis were sentenced to death and executed. Also you would expect that the Eastern European countries would be more strict with the former Nazis because:

1. the Nazis conceived the war in Eastern Europe as a "war of annihilation" and committed the majority of their war crimes there
2. the Communists were the first victims of the Nazis when Hitler came to power.

I just started wondering, if it ever happend that anti-aircraft artileries shoot down their own pilots, or maybe accident where allied pilot shoot down another one ? I'm curious about information from both sides of conflict (US, British, Germans, Italians, etc.) I'm aware that anti-aircraft artileries weren't super precise, and in situation where they were supporting their pilots in fighting off enemy planes, it seems impossible to not hit their own planes by mistake. Or in situation, where group of planes fought opposing air force. I guess there were situations where pilot trying to shoot down enemy plane, hit by mistake his squadmate that also chased the same plane or flew next to it when maneuvering. Of course I wouldn't count in here situations where they had to fight their own plane that got captured and used by enemy pilots.
But then, if such incidents did happend, were the pilots/crew of anti-aircraft artilery punished in any way for unintentionally shooting down their own pilots or, it was considered an accident and just pushed away ?

I don't know anything about their motivation having been taught WWII in an American classroom, but it seems like such a terrible strategic move. We were not involved in WWII at that point and as far as I know there was no definitive plan to join since Congress was debating over it. So what was their incentive? Did the Japanese anticipate the US joining? Also, the fact that they didn't have planes advanced enough to return home after the attack makes it seem even more of a mistake to attack.

Has there been any significant impact (e.g. on pregnancy development) on modern medicine of the experiments the Nazis conducted in concentration camps?

I was reading this historical fiction book where one of the character said measures like closing markets/linen cloth to cover face and mouth by nuns who treated the sick and washing hands with vinegar were employed in Florence during the pandemic but they were too late.

That got me thinking whether similar measures were taken in real life when the pandemic hit Europe and what were the measures?

Communism, as an idea, is pro worker. Yet for some reason, most communist countries seemed to have a sort of authoritarian rule.

I recently watched a documentary which mentions that Americans bombed/did their air raids during the day despite it being higher risk but the British chose to bomb at night. Why did Americans do this and which technique was overall more effective at targeting the Nazis?

I see why a revolver would be the most compact choice for a handgun, but why not revolver rifles and shotguns as well? Why not double barreled/breakbarrel rifles? why not lever action/bolt action shotguns? I know that examples of every one of these exist, such as the 1858 Carbine, 1887 Shotgun, and most elephant guns, but how come they never took off?

​

EDIT: Thinking back, I do feel that the width of a shotgun shell would make it less practical for something like a revolver or bolt action, but even still, it would be more practical than a double barrel with 2 shots.

My understanding is that many local languages have adopted various Spanish words as loanwords, but that the language itself is not commonly spoken in the islands. How did this occur when Spanish is still a widely-spoken language in Spain's former territories in Latin America and Equatorial Africa?

The author is Pei Xing and the story is Kunlun Nu.

Wikipedia claims in an offhand remark that one of the most brutal/sadistic perpetrators of the postrevolutionary massacres named Jean Zombi became so infamous in Haitian memory and culture that the figure of the Zombie was named after him.

1. Is this a fancy story or actually true?
2. Is/ was the figure of the zombie linked to revolutionary/counter-revolutionary or racist narratives? As in the supposed out of control, liberated angry black revolutionary being reverted into a mindless, occasionally even remote controlled body without soul?

Thank you for any potential answers!

Forgive me as American independence simply isn’t talked about in the UK, but a slogan I’ve heard a lot is ‘no taxation without representation’. While it’s quite easy for me to understand that universal suffrage would’ve been impossible to obtain as a colony (or at least what someone in the 18th century considered universal) the average person in the UK before the chartist reforms in 1832 was barely represented either. Rather as a simplification land owning males.

I remember hearing that Benjamin Franklin had ambitions of American seats, but was it ever seriously considered in the UK to extend the contemporary system to the colonies and would granting seats like this have placated the populous?

Furthermore, was the reason that other colonies later on not being granted seats a result of the same refusal or was it a result of poor lessons learned in America? Of course this is going to be in broad strokes as there will have been a hugely racist element about how different colonies were seen.

I'm surprised how difficult it is to find any information on the dates of extant copies for any roman writing. The conversation seems to be dominated by the dates of extant biblical sources. Obviously we have a huge volume of work from Cicero, but who copied them, how old are they, and where are they today? Is there a table that shows the extant date and location for each work like what we can easily find of the books of the Bible?

Sorry on a bit of a crusader binge and the man in Antioch seems to be roundly hated! Am I missing something?