The Roman Empire occupied the province of Britannia (roughly corresponding to modern day England & Wales) for quite some considerable time, and it is very well known that Romans did settle down in this province in large numbers and founded great cities like Londinium, just as they did in the other parts of the Empire.

Then, after the spectacular fall of the Western Roman Empire, Roman Britannia became independent against their will and despite numerous attempts of unification with what was left of Rome, this never happened and Britannia stayed - as an independent Roman state. Then, after having to deal with constant raids from the Picts and other Celtic tribes coming from the north, they started to hire mercenaries from Germany to help them fight against the invaders.

These mercenaries, the most prominent of which were the Anglos and Saxons, were promised land in modern day Kent as payment for their war effort. This quickly backfired and the Germanic tribes flocked into Britannia in masses, something the Romans were completely defenceless against, and soon the former allies would see each other as enemies and fight numerous wars, in almost all of which the Germanic settlers emerged victorious.

From this time in the 5th Century A.D. we also know that one of the last Romans to have ever lived, Ambrosius Aurelianus, led his troups into battle at Mons Badonicus - one of the few battles in which the Romano-Britons scored a victory. This was still no antidote to Germanic expansion in Britannia though and the Romans were quickly driven back to Wales and Cornwall, where they would slowly meet their demise.

And that's the point history goes completely dark in regards to Romano-Britons, at least for me. They didn't manage to hold on to Wales and Cornwall, maybe because Romans weren't initally a majority in these regions so not long after that these territories were in Celtic hands again.

But what happened to the Romans? We never hear about them from this moment on. Were they gradually assimilated into the Germanic cultures? Was there some genocide I don't know of? Were the Romans expelled after the Anglo-Saxon invasions? Why didn't a similar situation as in France occur, where after the fall of Rome the territories were also invaded by Germanic tribes but what emerged was a mix-culture, in essence still Latin? But we don't know of any Latin heritage in post-Roman Britain at all, do we? (Except for that which the French brought with them many centuries later)

I'm planning on writing an essay about the lasting impact of Simon Bolivar and the Latin American independence movement in which I weigh up the differing perspectives of historians as to whether it was ultimately for the better or worse.

For example, one could argue it was good because it brought Enlightenment principles to South America, but it could also be argued that the subsequent establishing of military dictatorships have left the continent in a similar - if not worse-off position - than it was in prior to the revolutions.

I've read up on background knowledge, now I'm looking for some more opinionated pieces to evaluate. Any suggestions would be welcomed.

While the UK and France were cutting back and relying on diplomacy and disarmament conferences, because of the depression, how did Germany afford to spend so heavily on armaments?

Did anti-Manchu racism continue to be a problem for ordinary Manchus even after the overthrow?

The man lived through world war I , I think it should be quite understandable why anyone would not want to relive the horrors of that. Yet , even in comic book movies he is portrayed as a literal villain for seeking peace or appeasing (which one neccesarily does when seeking peace) . I dont know enough about it to make any judgements but on th face of it, I feel that I can sympathize with his motivations and I was just wondering if the historical record is as damning for him as the popular imagination, which , when it was communicated to me, colors him as a coward. a fool and useful idiot

So correct me if I’m wrong anywhere but my understanding is after the US demands that japan open up, the shogunate opens up the country to an extent that neither the Chosu nor the Satsuma domain liked. So they launch a rebellion that puts the emperor back in power and formed a more centralized government modeled after western ones.

So I guess my main question is if the spark of the rebellion was anger against foreign powers having influence in Japan, why did the result of the rebellion lead to a government influenced by the foreigners? Why also did japan stay open and why did foreign powers aid the rebels instead of the shogunate who pretty much agreed to their concessions?

Thanks

I'm currently searching for a degree of some kind to do in university. I know that I want to pursue history in any way I can.
If I where to do a arts degree of history it seems it only leads to teacher, archaeologist or working in a museum and out of those the museum appeals to me the most.

As far as I know a dual degree of arts and something would allow me the most options in the future.

Even pursuits outside of University and extended learning would be appealing to me however I'm unsure if there are any outside of the ones I have previously stated and politics.

Naturally some of you would be historians which is a avenue I have not put much thought into as I don't really know how to become a historian or who they are outside of evaluations of reliability

From what I’ve read it seems that armies in the Greco-Roman period seemed to be on the scale of tens of thousands, while the scale of armies in the Middle Ages is always mentioned as much lower on the scale of a few thousand. What is the main reason for why powers at the time were unable to put together larger armies?

Pretty much what the title says. How much do we know about these folk tales from befoe the Brothers Grimm wrote them down?

I like to think of myself as someone that is passionate about history. I am a 15 year old and starting to think about future jobs being a historian has always been something in the back of my mind but I fear that it is not feasible or impractical. May parents also feel the same way is it worth it to pursue my passion or focus on other things in life

What was it like back in the early-mid 1800 when books came out in chapters?

This came up in r/books regarding The Count of Monte Cristo:

"It is probably my favorite book.

Can you imagine being in France in 1844 and then reading parts of The Count of Monte Cristo released basically every two weeks over the next 18 months? That would be so amazing, kind of like serial television today. Sitting around the "water cooler" talking about Dantes and what would happen next..."

I have been teaching for about a decade and I particularly enjoy in my ancient world history surveys sharing some of the latest research on the Bronze Age Collapse (12th century BCE). However, this month I have been preparing a Reacting to the Past game based on King Josiah's reforms (i.e., the discovery of the Book of Deuteronomy in the Temple) and I was wondering if anyone had thoroughly studied the transmission of law codes over the Bronze Age Collapse divide. I ask this because one of the hallmarks of the Bronze Age Collapse is the general decline of literacy, to the extent that in some places (like Mycenean Greece) literacy itself seemed to collapse.

Given that the law codes of Mesopotamia (Ur Nammu and Hammurabi spring to mind first of all) date from before the Bronze Age Collapse and the Mosaic Law only certainly entered the written record around the 7th century BCE, does this argue for continuity of literacy in the region? One of the connected issues is the evolution/transfer of similar law codes from regions using Cuneiform alphabets to those using Canaanite/Phoenician alphabets.

I did a bit of searching in the usual places (campus library and various databases), but I have not hit gold yet. My grad school research was entirely on Russian Central Asia, so this is outside my original training, though definitely in my wheelhouse as a college professor teaching "world history," for better or for worse.

TL;DR: Are there any theories explaining in detail how the Mesopotamia law codes (20th - 18th centuries BCE) that seem to inspire the Mosaic laws (8th - 7th centuries BCE) were transmitted across the divide caused by the Bronze Age Collapse?

Growing up in one of the countries formerly a subject of the Ottomans, we were taught that the Ottoman ban of the printing press which lasted for around 300 years after its introduction in Europe, was a major reason behind the backwardness of the Middle Eastern Islamic societies in comparison with European ones. How true is that statement?

How did the British Royal Navy figure out how to operate German U-boats it captured during WW2? A submarine is a sophisticated weapon, and it takes months of training to gain basic operational proficiency, so how did sailors - without help and guidance from instructors - learn how to operate these vessels?

For example, in 1941, the German U-570 surrendered to RAF bombers after it was damaged and forced to surface. U-570 was then commissioned into the Royal Navy and went on patrol. How did the sailors in the Royal Navy know how to do anything with this unfamiliar submarine, let alone operate it effectively, proficiently, and safely?

For instance, could she enjoy solitaire, bridge, whist? Checkers, parcheesi, chess? I assume anything involving gambling was out of the question.