I was reading about the successes of the Parlimentarian pamphlet and booklet campaign. Especially the successes of the Levellers. And was wondering what the literacy levels of the poor, men and women, were during this time and if the Parldmentarians had literacy programs in support of their war efforts.

I thought it would be interesting to look up old family crests for displaying them on the wall etc. Finding my surname, I didn't realize names had so many different crests. That said, are all of these crests I've found legitimate? If so, are all of these crests for my surname from different branches etc? How would I determine which one is "my" crest?

Most of the gods in the Hyborian Age stories have a clear historical or literary source, but I'm not aware of any source for a god who wants no worship & grants no boon, aside from the will to persevere in the face of adversity.

I have several questions about what happened to Babylonia.

Following Cyrus the Great Babylonia joined the Persian Empire, why did it never declare independence again during the chaotic periods afterwards? For centuries before it had been a persistent thorn in Assyrias side, revolting every other Monday it sometimes seems. Why do we not hear about Babylonian culture in the Seleukids? We don't hear about 'eastern culture' again until it starts exporting sun cults into Rome. Surely there is more to the region post-Persia than just that.

I've always heard that the printing press was what allowed books to be widely accessible, which led me to wonder about their value before the printing press was invented. By common sense, they were probably expensive, but I'd like to get an idea of how expensive that would be.

​

Would it cost as much as a car in modern terms, or maybe a house? I would also love to have some sources for further reading if anyone can direct me!

Can anyone comment on the historical credibility of the following claim?

After the fall of Rome, the empire was divided among ten kingdoms. Seven of those ten tribes developed into the countries of modern Western Europe, while three were destroyed.

• Visigoths --> Spain
• Anglo-Saxons --> England
• Franks --> France
• Alemani --> Germany
• Burgundians --> Switzerland
• Lombards --> Italy
• Suevi --> Portugal
• Heruli, Ostrogoths, Vandals --> Destroyed

Is it fair to say there were primarily ten such kingdoms? Are there other significant players being ignored here? And does it make sense to link them to these modern nations in this way?

I'm just curious how Germany's legal system reconciled itself after World War II. It seems as if there would have been a crisis of legitimacy. How could you take seriously the pronouncement of a judge that was at best complicit in the Nazi legal regime of 1933-1945?

Any recommendations on suggested reading concerning this subject would be appreciated.

I've heard that the focus of the Civilian Conservation Corps and other programs designed to ease the burden of poverty during the Great Depression were aimed primarily to benefit white Americans - is this true? Were the programs biased? Or did they help hard-hit Americans equally?

I know that Julius nepos had been declared western emperor by zeno but Odoacer had control of the western Senate and could have easily proclaimed himself western emperor and it boggles me as to why he didn't.

Edit: when I say governor I mean rule independently in italy.

I am curious to know how the progression through the ranks happened and how long it might take to get from a Lieutenant to a Colonel, for a infantry regiment and a cavalry squadron.

Also would all the officers be of noble birth or would i be able to raise through the ranks, if i were the son of a wealthy merchant, business owner or land owner (but not a noble). Although i imagine that if i were a non-noble, it would be easier to raise through the ranks of infantry, than does of cavalry, right?

From what i can tell, the purchasing of commissions was far a more extensive practice in the British army, then the armies of other nations.

From what I know, untouchability was being practiced long before the British came to India. However, lately I've been seeing replies where people talk about untouchability being created by the British which seems rather sketchy to me. I'd be grateful if the doubts are resolved.

PS. : Please be topic specific and I would be thankful if you posted books or articles in support of your opinion especially if you say that untouchability was created by the British.

🔴🔴PPS: If youre Indian, don't start a caste war or left vs right war here.

Thanks.

The title of Free Imperial City seems to have been exclusively conferred on cities located in the west and central portions of what is today Germany. Despite this fact, the HRE covered a significantly larger area including modern Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Czech Republic, parts of Italy and Poland etc. Why were there not more Free Imperial Cities and did the many prominent cities in these regions enjoy any similar privileges and autonomy even if without Imperial Immediacy?

I recently read about Malik Ambar, an African slave who served as a soldier in India and eventually became an influential ruler of the Ahmadnagar Sultanate in India. This got me thinking about slavery in in India. In Europe we learn quite a lot about the trans-Atlantic slave system and the slavery in Southeast-Asia. I also happen to know some things about the slavery of the Muslim world and the Mediterranean slavery of the classical era, but I never hear about slavery in India. Was slavery a common thing there or were slaves only used as soldiers (like Malik Ambar)? And what other forms of slavery were there in South-Asia?

I get that the timespan of this question might make things a bit too vague, but I'm mostly wondering about the colonial time period; just before and just after the arrival of the Europeans (so 1500-1800 or something like that).

I would like to know how the day to day of a farmer was during the Medieval Ages was. I know it is maybe a question too broad because of the Medieval Ages being a big lapse of time and because of the life of farmers from different countries was different. A comparison of these differences and why there was produce (weather, wealthiness, political system) will be very useful to me.

The thing is I want to write a fantasy novel and since I am asking to get inspired and to be at least self coherent in my story. Also, I would also appreciate any kind of reading that could help a layperson to get a grasp of the matter.

Thanks in advance.

There's a rich tradition throughout history of tyrannical dictators overthrowing democracies but keeping democratic institutions around on paper to make the transition of power smoother and to provide a rubber stamp. Did Hitler ever bother to declar the Weimar Republic to be over or did he just continue using the Enabling Act while technically holding the title of Chancellor throughout WW2?

So this questions kind of a mix between the title question and the question, "Why didn't Canada revolt with the Thirteen Colonies?"

Last year in history I asked my teacher the latter question and he said it was because the Canadians, specifically the newly Canadian territories of the former New France, were Catholic and didn't appreciate the Protestant colonies anti-catholic rhetoric.

Seeing as it was a question mostly asked to distract him and to get him talking because you know, bored highschoolers, I didn't pay attention closely to what he said and just accepted that as fact so he probably explained it further than protestants hate stinky Catholics, but after that I always had an issue with that considering that New England is primarily Catholic, so was what he said wrong and the reason Canada isn't part of the States for a different reason, and if not why did New England follow along with the States despite the Protestant anti-catholic stance?

Germany pushed for the caucasus oil fields seemingly to control them as the German army was running on fumes and could barely keep their tanks running. but how would controlling the fields actually lead to them being able to refuel?

would they not still have to somehow funnel it back to refineries for it to be actually useable? and build ten of thousands of kilometers of pipeline or rail to get it back to german factories or to the more northern areas of the front?

was this to simply deny the soviets the oil? i'm just thinking about the ongoing scorched earth policy and how even if the germans seized the land i'm unclear if any of it would be actually usable by then