Were people running the sort of scams or confidence tricks we would be familiar with today? Was this sort of thing common or wide spread?

As far as I know it's disagreement due to slavery, but even after it racism was still a problem. What were true reasons for war and its results?

If that premise is possibly correct, are there any other religions that have been treated in this fashion by Christendom? I understand where Norse is concerned it's hard to make any concrete conclusions because we know basically nothing because there are no writings that predate Christianity in the area. With the way Christianity and Islam spread, surely there were some places where religions were written down. It's already known that changing existing religions was a favorite strategy, but did they straight up use new mythology to kill the old gods?

Did these protest cause political change in some manner or contribute to it further down the line? At a governmental or cultural level?

Watching videos, it seems like the archer is using the bow in a 'normal' way (roughly perpendicular to their own body), but the Wikipedia article for the English longbow says that they were often six feet tall and that some have been discovered at even bigger sizes. How would a person use a bow like that? It seems to me that at that size it would need to have one end set on the ground or something. Is the curve of the bow extreme enough to allow for it?

Glossing over any reason of why this is being asked, I’m curious as to the naming conventions of Japanese clans during the Sengoku and Edo period, specifically for the surname. Was it common for all members of the clan to share the same last name? For men, women and children? How did intermarriage between the clans dictate which surname was used? Knowing that clans weren’t necessarily entirely blood relatives, how did those outside of the clan’s direct lineage name themselves? Any information is appreciated.

I can find nothing taking about it, was Japan spared? Edit, meant medieval

I visited Istanbul and in one of the big mosques there was a writing on the balcony in Viking scripture, the explanation was that some Vikings visited the city and left a letter/poem written in the mosque. How did they travel so far from Scandinavia? Was this common? How did they even know that there was a city such as Istanbul ?

I have two lines of though on why this could be the case, but I'm not sure

From my understanding, Hitler usually gave peoples he thought were "racially superior" greater autonomy (my prime example is Croatia, which I will return to in my second line of thinking). Under this (insane) line of thinking, the slovaks were deemed racially superior to both the Czechs and Poles (which makes no sense, the Czechs and Slovak languages, to my understanding, are only just beginning to diverge to a more significant degree, with Slovak having a higher degree of mutual intelligibility with polish.

My other theory is that it was more about freeing resources from having to occupy certain areas, for much like in Croatia where the Ustase were utilized to crush local resistance, and perpetrate ethnic cleansing in the region. However, if this was the case, why didn't he just give it to the Hungarians?

I suppose that creating somewhat independent regions also provides quells some notions of resistance, but that really seems like it would be temporary.

In relation to my first paragraph Nazi racial policy makes no sense, and somewhat frequently, to my knowledge, frequently contradicts its own standards, but now I'm getting off topic

Wikipedia states that:

The language and style used are intended to resemble that of the 17th century, though the prose has features characteristic of no period whatsoever: the almost-complete lack of dialogue and proper names, for example.

Some background. I love history and for a very long time i was considering a career in ghe field. To me it’s a very important and too often overlooked subject.

The schools in my area barely glance over world history. The Hellenic, roman and egyptian periods are about one class long each, and they don’t even cover the rich mythology or art. world war I and II are covered only on how it affected my province. The causes and why they even began are not covered. They didn’t even know what the Holocaust, and have no idea why nazis are bad.

I decided to give them a crash course during our confinement, but I must admit I’m at a loss because my own studies are far behind me and I want to make sure to give correct information.

Any help, be it a website or book with a good curriculum would be greatly appreciated.

What did the Irish revolutionaries in 1919 have going for them that their predecessors in 1916, 1867, 1848, 1789 etc. didn't have? What was different in 1919?

I'm assuming priests, scribes, merchants and craftsmen were urban, but what about agricultural workers? Would they be heading out to the fields from their homes in Ur or Lagash? Did all the landowners live in town, or did they have rural estates?

For reference, the specific car Biff drives is a 1946 Ford Super DeLuxe convertible (black). Marty and Doc are in a DMC Delorean. Although the model year is not specified, Deloreans were only produced from 1981-1982, with model years 1981-1983, with no body differences among them.

My question is about casualties at the Battle of the Seelow Heights. In 1945 the German defenses were effectively collapsing with Hitler throwing the kitchen sink at the Soviets and hoping for the best.

At the heights the Soviets outnumbered the Germans 10:1 based on Wikipedia. Veteran Soviet shock armies faced off against understrength ragtag German units... And the Soviets suffered 30k dead to the Germans 12k?

I understand they were defending, but these are heavy tank armies vs whatever Hitler had left.

How could Soviet casualties be so high? Are these number just wrong, were casualties assessed differently on different sides? What is going on here? Particularly since these lopsided casualties seem common in eastern front battles ie Battle of Narva 68k German casualties vs 480k Soviets?

This question is obviously born of hindsight, but the fact that Philip II. of Spain succeeded Charles in the Burgundian territories instead of the new Emperor Ferdinand seems very counter-intuitive to me: Philip was more distant, both in terms of geography and culture (which would factor into the General Estates' discontent leading to the Dutch Revolt) whereas Ferdinand as Emperor would have been in a much better position to control the territories (which were still part of the Empire/Burgundian Circle). Spain, Italy and Milan were already fairly rich, whereas the Austrian Habsburgs constantly had to fight the Imperial Estates for taxes to fund the Turkish Wars and would probably have welcomed the revenue from Antwerp, Bruges etc..

Perhaps (some of) these assumptions are already wrong, my only sources of information as of now are Wiki and Wilson's Thirty Years War (which only notes that Philip received the rich Netherlands, but Ferdinand had the more prestigious title; an explanation I find a bit unsatisfactory).

As I’ve grown up my general understanding has been that the vast majority of the developed world is colonized. Even much of South Africa and other places on top of the obvious Americas.

My question is, are the people who exist in countries like China, Japan, Korea, and other areas of Asia the indigenous people of their zones or is it that there was a significantly more complete colonization of those areas?

I got interested in the origin and continuity of european political subregions like duchies and counties, which lands one in the early middle ages and feudalism. Clicking further back into the carolingian and merovingian times (in Wikipedia) information is more scarce.

WP tells me, in the late Roman Empire since Diocletian there were small districts called pagi (pagus), administered by bureaucrats called comes. The Francs later kept the structure and the comes, well at least the title, later then feudalism and heritability. Do wo know what frankish pagi/counties where there and who ruled them? Or is there a lack of sources?

If not, are there any good resources to learn more about this early period? Maybe a good historical atlas?

I used to finish a 500 page novel in two days. Obviously know that I cannot do that with history or nonfiction in general.

But I also feel that at this rate I'll never read a lot of books to really gain knowledge of history ( and philosophy and religion )

So how do I fix this problem without having to skip through the details? I'm interested the details otherwise I'd read a brief article on the subject online.

Obviously Jesus didnt think he was in the year 20 AD. I would also assume Ceaser wasn't counting down to the birth of Christ. I am mostly asking about the greater Mediterranean area.