Years ago I visited the site of the battle of Hastings and learned about it's significance to the English language, but I have always been curious how the transformation occurred. Did William the Conquerer directly and intentionally change the language, or was it a gradual process that developed over time? How did the common people adjust to the change? (More to do with etymology) Are there words we can directly trace back to the battle?

Hey, i'm doing a school project and I need help finding a source. This might be a little far fetched, but does anyone know about or have an article from Japan focusing on this topic? Thank you!!

I am finding it really hard to confirm the identity of the craftsmen that made the finished items of these types. Were they completed by the weavers, adding decorations and finishing, or was there some other craftsman in charge of putting the finishing touches?

Also, who made the household items that were *not* made of cloth, like fur blankets?

Furthermore, what were the most important regions for these people?

Assuming they were not, how did this happen? Did the Magyars or the Christian start this hoax?

It seems like I'm going against common knowledge because every hungarian (also knows as magyar) is being teached this through these fairy tales where Hunor and Magor the 2 brothers are the ancestors of us all, but I can't find anything to back theory up.

Ferdinand aus der Fuenten and Fritz Fischer were only released in 1989. What made the Netherlands so reluctant to let them out even more than forty years later? Were they simply so infamous there, the government didn't want to see them ever freed? I read Fuenten's biography on Wikipedia, and it seems strange to me that only four Nazis were ever imprisoned in the Netherlands, but they weren't let out until they were actually dying.

It was quite surprising to me that that Chattel slavery existed in the Ottoman Empire. Here's the relevant section:

Quantitatively, the most important traffic in slave chattel and captive occurred with the Ottoman Empire. The Russian Empire interacted with Islamic regions where chattel slavery was common and regarded as the only legitimate form of coerced labour under Islamic law.

Muslim Tatars of the Crimea raided widely for Russian subjects as well as other eastern Slavs, Poles and Lithuanians, and they exported most of their captives to the Ottomans.

In 1529, half of all the slaves in the Ottoman Crimea were identified as coming from Ukraine and Muscovy; the other half were Circassians. From the 1 570s, about 20,000 slaves were sold annually in the port of Caffa on the Black Sea.•s Until the early seventeenth century,

Russians and above all Cossacks also sold captives to the Tarars or directly to the Ottomans.The Ottoman rules on slave trading distinguished between slaves who were brought from the Tatar and Circassian areas and chose from Onoman territories such as Azov and Taman. The tax on the latter was half of that on the former group.

Is any of this true?

Was France the only other power involved in the war between the UK and the Thirteen Colonies? Didn't Spain stand as much to gain as the French from UK loss?

I'm not sure if these traits are common to other Roman historians - I've only read Tacitus so far, but I found it odd that an author that was otherwise exceptionally pro-Rome and pro-authority (if not always supportive of those with authority), would portray the people Rome were fighting against in an almost heroic light.

I'm watching the latest series of "The Last Kingdom" and some of the fortified towns ("burhs") closely resemble medieval castles, with towers, stone walls, ramparts etc, but no signs of ditches. Is this a realistic representation? Or were they more similar to the hill forts of the iron age, with simple wooden walls & ditches?

Hey all, I've been reading rather a lot about Cicero lately and have recently started a fictional biography by Taylor Caldwell, A Pillar of Iron.

What strikes me in this telling is that she portrays Cicero as a sort of proto-Christian. In her foreword, she writes that he was "deeply involved in Judean theology and philosophy, and was well acquainted with...the prophecies of the Messias-to-come, and was a worshipper of the Unknown God."

She also states that "Cicero was particularly struck by...the prophecy of the Messias and the Incarnation of God as man. He was so fascinated, and so hopeful, that many of his letters include speculation on the event".

Now I gather this is all hyperbole at the very least, but she claims all this can be found in Cicero's letters, which she herself translated in the Vatican library.

Is there any truth to this? I've done a bit of research but can't find anything relating Cicero to Judaism. I'd be interested in reading these letters if they really do exist.

Thanks!

Recently I was reading into this topic a bit, freely on my own time, and I remembered seeing somewhere that one of Madison's main oppositional critics of the Federalist Party, whose name unfortunately also escapes me at this time, decried Madison's claims, saying that Madison and his warhawks had grossly over-inflated the numbers by the thousands to justify their desire for war.

Furthermore, I can recall reading somewhere that the accurate numbers were perhaps only in the low, low hundreds at most. Is this true? I am also presently struggling to find the data I need.

This is something I have noticed as a non-native English speaker. When African Americans speak, they usually have a distinct accent that differs from white Americans from the same area. However, when I listen to British people speaking I do not see a vast difference between the accents. How did this historically happen that in Britain the black population did not create a community accent while in the US they did?

My grandparents used to tell me how they worked the land when they were teens, before mechanisation came in. It sounded pretty rough. I always wondered if the primitive technology they used was any different from the one used in ancient times. I always was left with the impression that agricultural tech did not change that much through the millenia.

Edit: I am actually not sure if the plows they used were made of wood or metal. In any event, it seems that ancient civilizations were perfectly capable to use both materials.

Edit: I also know that they had a very robust understanding of crop rotation but I am not entirely sure how it worked (e.g. what crops were rotated and when).