If not, what's the difference in terms of origin and benefits? I'm also curious about the other names of territories like county and lordship.

I'm also wondering that if a king gifts a person a part of their land, will that person see to that land and the king doesn't have to worry about it? Or will the king still be completely involved?

North Brabant is the southernmost province of the modern Netherlands, and I'm confused as to why it didn't split from the rest of the Netherlands when South Brabant did in the 1830s. The population is mostly Roman Catholic instead of Protestant and the Brabantian dialect is similar to Flemish. What kept the North-Brabantians Orangist?

Though the vast majority of the Balkans were under ottoman rule at one point, and despite significant culinary interaction (cevapi and such), only Hungarian cuisine is known to stain so many notable dishes bright red with paprika, which is well known to be an Ottoman import. Why did Hungary specifically adopt this spice to such an overwhelming degree while other former Ottoman holdings did so in a much less overwhelming and characteristic way? Is there any more to it than what I assume to be ideal farmland for paprika in the alföld?

Online I came across the comment "Almost all historian's believe that none of the writers of the gospel were written by the named individuals." The person went on to comment how also... "None of the disciples, first-hand or second-hand, contributed to any of the new testament"...
(I might be confusing apostles and disciples, I get confused with that)

I guess I always thought, the writers were possibly interviewing the apostles/disciples, observing their preaching, and writing their stories.

I guess because I am not well-verse in the actual theology/histology of Christian, I went down a rabbit hole of trying to understand who were the writers of the New Testament that actually witnessed or knew Jesus or the theories of how close the source of the writing's were to Jesus and his circle.

Or was this all just randomly written 60 years later, and passed down like a wise tale

I'm sure the answer is way more complicated than my question... my head's spinning just after researching for a couple hours

This is a question that I've been struggling with lately. Especially with my historical readings during quarantine.

It's a historiographical question really. I was thinking that narrative wise alot of western with regards to story and narrative is built around the concept of the heroes journey. Namely a protagonist has a goal but faces some challenges in reaching the goal, they overcome them and reach their goal. I think that when reading history books I often (to my own embarassment filter the books through this line of reasoning). Namely I'll look at authoritarian regimes, human rights abusers etc (apartheid south africa, stalinist russia, pinochet,etc) as haven fallen and given way to the relentless train of progress, democracy and human flourishing.

Now when I examine this critically I can't help but think that maybe this is wrong. Maybe history doesn't tend towards progress but ebbs and flows towards progress? Indeed could it be possible that there are paths that have not been taken by history that could have lead to a more progressive outcome?

I'm not sure if any scholar writes on this or if anyone can describe to me a way to get out of this quite embedded narrative that history must tend towards progress, indeed there must be paths untaken by the course of history that could have lead to more progress than currently exists.

Indeed I'd like to know if anyone can think of some historical events that are clear regressions as opposed to progression?

I can't help feeling that as I interrogate my biases that they believe the current state of the world must be the most progressive state available as opposed to a state that could exist for other reasons such as convenience.

Can anyone help me out of this quandry?

I mean, they fought against 2 world powers, and 2 minor powers, and their army was largely outnumbered by their opponents.

Many things come to mind when I think of Italy: calzone, pizza, alfredo, spaghetti, panini and... the Roman empire. But were those dishes even present in Roman culture? What about similar archaic recipes?

How about staple Italian ingredients? Mozzarella, parmesan, olive oil, and garlic? Did Romans eat gelato or even pasta?

Hello to everyone!I'm writing a novel that takes place during WW1 and I want the General to give a pre battle speech to his soldiers.Did this ever happen before a battle?If yes,I would like to know in which place of the battlefield was given.If not,where could had happened?Could it be inside the trenches(for example in the reserve ones?). Thank you in advance. :)P.S. sorry for my english Edit: after moderator's comments I would like to address some issues. First of all I don't intend to argue with anyone. Secondly , It's not a historical novel.I just want these information to avoid Hollywood cliches.

I understand that it was an attempt for the French to get revenge against the British after the Seven Years' War. However, it seems to me to be a very risky move on the part of Louis XVI to support a revolution that could inspire a revolution against himself.

edit: grammar

More specifically, when and why did the idea that France is for the French, Germany for the Germans, Russia for the Russians develop? Was it all around the same time for the same reasons or is it more unique to each respective nation?

After the announcement of the new Assassin's Creed, I've been documenting on the world of ancient Vikings, from habits to history, to mythology (an aspect that I've always loved) and I'll soon read books like "Norse Mythology" by Neil Gaiman and the Ragnar Lothbrok Saga translated by Waggoner.

Though I am fascinated by this world I fear that most of that fashion has been carefully placed by our media just to sell more and be more interesting to the viewers and players, so what I want to know is how much do we really know about these populations? And how do we know what we know?

And what about their religion? Is that real or is it just a manipulated depiction of Icelandic and Norwegian folklore? I'm especially interested in religious practices and myths, I loved them while watching Vikings.

Edit: I'm also very interested in their real history.

I always read/hear that by the time of the Directory, the power of the street was essentially spent. I recognize that the terror basically killed everyone on the left, and I assume many of the patriotic sans cullottes joined the republican forces so that depleted their power in some way, but were more of their material needs met under the Jacobins? Did things get any better, and how did things change for the lowest class after Thermidor and subsequent revolutionaty governments? I’m interested in any reading material on this subject as well. (I only speak/read English).

I am interested in learning more about the history of secret societies, particularly in the context of American colleges. Doesn't even necessarily have to be secret; fraternities and other notable college organizations are good too. Anything from 18th-20th century. I know this is a popular subject, and there are tons of books on it, but it's hard to know what is reputable and what is not. There's a lot of conspiracy theory stuff out there, and a lot of conjecture meant to stoke the imagination, but I'm not really interested in that.

You come across Nazis and their propaganda centered around the Aryan race. But where did this obsession stem from. Is there any relation of the nazi Aryans to the Indian Aryan race. Is that where the idea probably came from?

Seeing as we’re in a situation where it seems like much of the general populace is aware of the alleged crimes of our president, and were prior to his impeachment. How informed was the public about Nixon and his dealings prior to the breaking of the Watergate scandal?

By this I don't mean Azeris or Turkmen or the other speakers of Turkic languages in the Soviet Union (which of course has its own complicated history of script reforms), but former Ottoman territories which, for some reason or another, weren't involved in the population exchanges of the early 20th century. Places like the Aegean Islands (controlled by Italy) or Cyprus—did the Turkish populations of such areas continue to write in Arabic script long after those in Turkey had switched to the Latin alphabet? (Similar question about the small Ottoman-Turkish diaspora in the US, etc.) And if so, how long did it take for reforms in Turkey to permeate these areas where Atatürk couldn't enforce any such changes?