What long term effects did this have for them? Did not having suffered a reduction to their population effect power dynamics in the region?

Did Poland forego the 'positives' of black death such as an increase in wages due to labour shortages?

Was their any significant migration of Poles to neighbouring regions?

Did not having suffered a reduction to their population effect power dynamics in the region?

Did Poland forego the 'positives' of black death such as an increase in wages due to labour shortages?

Was their any significant migration of Poles to neighbouring regions?

I keep hearing that ancient Egyptians were actually black which sounds wrong to me because it seems to ignore geography, migration and diversity but this is just speculation on my part. So what is actually known about race in ancient Egypt?

Historically many people all over the world used alcohol to conserve drinks and make them safer to drink because they couldn't spoil as easily. However, when a Muslims strictly obeys Muslim religious laws (I think it's called the Sharia but I could be wrong), they are not allowed to drink alcohol.

That made me wonder how the Muslims of the middle ages and early modern ages (7th century-1850) made drinks that were safe for drinking for a longer time.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

I'm currently reading Jeff Shaara's Gods and Generals, and I was surprised when Lee was portrayed as being ignorant of succession talk as late at Sept 1860. I'm assuming this was for a narrative purpose (so the reader could learn with the character about the upcoming conflict) but was there any basis for this? Did Succession talk begin as the election cycle started? Or did it only gain steam after the election? Was it wide spread? Or limited to segments of society, like politicians, army officials, within the South itself, etc.?

Bonus question: Shaara portrays a crisis in the Army's loyalty leading up to the election. Was the Army threatening to fall apart (due to sectional loyalty) before the election? Or made up for dramatic effect.

I'm wondering how he managed to overcome what seems to be incredible odds to become the leader of China. How was he able to build the base of support necessary to outmaneuver Hua Guofeng? Why was Hua susceptible to this sort of action, given (in my mind at least) that he should have already had the loyalty of the moderate wing following the purge of the Gang of Four? Thanks for any help you can provide.

In school I learned that after several failed attempts at sailing west to India, his was imprisoned by the Spanish King and Queen because of these failures.

However recently during the BLM movement, I've heard people say that Columbus was imprisoned by the Spanish because of his immoral practices toward the native americans.

I'm curious to what extent either of these facts are actually true, especially because I wouldn't think a European king in the 1400s would care about the welfare of the Native Peoples unfortunately.

What happened to people who lived in the American Colonies who supported the British after the war? Any documentation of loss of business/property/status?

I've heard in multiple books that Ancient Romans viewed their world in much the same way as people who follow the Shinto religion do - every rock, stream, tree e.t.c. has a spirit. Though I never see it discussed as much as the 'Olympians'.

Why aren't there any zeppelins? I know that the Hindenburg exploded but that's like 1 car crashing and then people just sticking to horses.

I'm not looking for a specific time period, so any historical examples would suffice. I'm envisioning a scenario where any able-bodied men are conscripted for defense. If someone, say a farmer by trade, died in a battle, how would their family find out? Would they be notified directly, or perhaps only learn by asking around as other combatants returned? Would they simply wait until they gave up hope?

I was thinking that working as a chef on a boat probably required some skill, and therefore if he was able to do so (or convince them he could do so), then he might have been seen as more trustworthy or less-scrutinized compared to a standard deckhand position.

During the French Revolution I often hear that Napolean Boneparte's contemporary, Maximilien Robespierre, fell from political power (and was ultimately executed) because he was perceived by the people as a dictator.

How then, was Napoleon accepted for pursuing the powers and control he did during the French Revolution, if people were so apprehensive about dictators?

In her book The Creation of Patriarchy, historian Gerda Lerner puts forth ten propositions for the process by which the patriarchy developed in the West, over the years from approximately 3000BC to 600 BC. She argues, for instance, that a first step was the appropriation of women's sexuality and reproduction, which occurred before the formation of private property and served as the foundation for the notion of private property. She argues that men learned to dominate by dominating women and then found ways to institutionalize dominance, through slavery. Another step, she argues, was the dethroning of goddesses and replacing them with a dominant male god. Patriarchy became fully entrenched, she claims, when women were symbolically demoted in relation to the divine and also philosophically considered to be damaged men. At that point, the subordination of women came to be seen as "natural."

I understand that her overarching argument is not widely accepted, but I cannot find what should take its place.

Which of her propositions have been disproven, and if so, what *is* the current understanding of how women's subordination (economically, socially, sexually, educationally, etc.) developed in the West? (Caveat: I know history focuses on written records, so apologies if this is more of a question for Assyriologists. Unfortunately, there is no AskAssyriology!)

Names like David, Michael, Gabriel, etc. are common in many European cultures, I assume that Germany is no exception.

What did Germans with Jewish names do in that period? Were they required to change their names? would they get in trouble for having them? Or was it just part of the Christian heritage for the nazis?