Humans walked to America via the Bering. Humans walked across Canada to Greenland. Australia was hard to miss. Iceland sorta makes sense.

But Easter Island ?!

It was not attached to any other continent while humans existed. How could they hit it? I doubt ancient polynesians sent thousands of boats navigating the oceans metholidacally, thousands of kilometers from their homeland until they found it.

It boggles the mind.

There is tons of info on his many personal motivations for the split, including securing a dynasty and personal lust/love, as well as many other factors. But I can’t find anything about how he justified the action in a Catholic/Christian framework. Did he even bother?

Emperor Julian supposedly refered to Christian churches as 'Charnel houses' to mock their keeping of holy or saintly relics. To me this implies that there wasn't such a tradition, but it seems to make sense that a shrine might have what they claimed to me Theseus's shinbone or something, or did the concept of apotheosis in Hellenic religion necessitate a physical accession?

Syndacate is even become something of a synonym for criminal organization. In Europe the history of unions, as far as I know, has always been that of a workers' indipendent movement with socialist influence, and it never got mixed with mafia or mobsters, nor they tried to take control of it. Is it true, as depicted in most movies, that it was the opposite in the US? If so, why? How did it work, what benefits did they get from it?

How would it divide the country? Raise an army? Deal with it’s enemies?

I guess my question is really a handful of questions. The first question, I'm wondering about the fact that the bombs were nuclear specifically. I've seen elsewhere the argument that, from the Japanese perspective, it didn't particularly matter at the time whether it was one bomb from one plane vice several hundreds or thousands of bombs from a multitude of aircraft. Additionally given the fact that the long term effects of radiation and by extension nuclear warfare weren't known to the Japanese, did it matter at all that the US used singular nuclear bombs on each city? (As opposed to a 'traditional' bombing campaign to level the cities)

In your opinion how much more important, if at all, to the Japanese was the Soviet advance in Manchuria than the American attacks on the Homeland?

Are there any surviving firsthand accounts of Japanese officials' discussions about the end of the war? (Bonus if they're translated into English so I could read them as I don't speak Japanese)

Mostly I'm looking for general clarification behind the Japanese thought process towards the end of the war. Sorry if it's been asked here before. I did try to search previous questions but I didn't come up with anything. Though I fully admit that might just be because I was using bad keywords.

1. How commonplace was anti-Semitism in general opinion and in the law prior to Nazi occupation?
2. How commonplace was misogyny in general opinion and in the law prior to Nazi occupation, and after the occupation?
3. What sort of influence did the Catholic Church have in pre-war Poland? Did the Nazis suppress this?
4. Did Poland have any treaties or agreements with countries prior to the Second World War?
5. As a whole, what sort of lifestyle did the Polish people lead before the occupation? Was there much technology? How rich did they tend to be? How did this change when the Nazis invaded? Was rationing implemented?

I've asked quite a lot of questions. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, da3m0ny

Did the forces immediately stop fighting? Or did it take some time for word to reach them?

I'm really curious about how this entire process worked, did both sides also work together to remove the dead after the fighting stopped?

There obviously were conflicts between the papacy and the emperor of the HRE. The emperor would appoint an antipope to replace the pope. The title of pope also came with land and had secular power besides being the spiritual leader of the Catholic church. So why didn't any emperor try to become pope as well?

The title says it all, though the assumption is that this is in a scenario where Germany somehow won WWII. Did Hitler knew how the next Furher was gonna be chosen? Assuming that he had children, would the power go to them, or would it go to another high-ranking Nazi official? Would there be a vote, or would Hitler's word be final?

Sophocles writes about a conflict between Oedipus and an old man over who has the right of way on a road and the latter is killed - signifying that road rage wasn't a foreign concept in the ancient world. More to the point though, would there have been a set of rules for roadway travel codified at any point in Greece or Rome, and if so, do we have any fragments of it surviving today? Can we tell from archaeology if not?

In one volume of Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle—which certainly feels thoroughly researched—a character (commoner turned Duchess) is depicted lifting her winter skirts to avoid human excrement left in the halls of the apartments at Versailles. It is noted to be 7 years after the establishment of le palais.

How accurate is this? Water works, I know, were a marveled feature of the grounds, but it's not surprising that internal plumbing was yet far off. I'm just surprised they didn't have copper pots or something. Is this so?

Edit: spelling of duchess. Noted, thank you.

Is there documentation or testimony to show what his position was on using the atom bomb? I think I remember Truman was quite for it, but I could be wrong. I'm wondering if this was a point of difference for the two? If you have any suggested reading, that would be great. Thank you!

Since both are PIE languages that still have some similar words. how similar were they 2500 years ago? did they realize the likeness?

It seems to me that they could even have been speaking in some pidgin form

Forgive the obligatory "this question comes from something I just watched" explanation, but after viewing HBO's John Adams mini-series, my first thought about Adams's disastrous efforts at diplomacy in France was not about why things went so poorly, but instead why Congress thought he would be a good choice for the post in the first place, in light of both the language barrier and his reputation for being stubborn and cantankerous.

I would greatly appreciate any insight you could provide on the thought process behind his appointment. Thank you!

Fiction and historically inspired movies often put the general, leader, captain, etc. at the head of the army and that person leads the charge.

I understand the Hollywood appeal of the lead actor heroically charging into battle. But, did military leaders actually do this?

It would be neat to hear how this changed over advances in military combat.

Basically the title. Did Lincoln win because a significant portion of the population wanted to abolish slavery, or did he win because he was viewed more as a moderate, non divisive peace keeper who just wanted to keep the union together?