And how much would it change in 10 years?

I have seen the footage of the event that occured August of 1946 at Mountain Ash, Wales. It's rather odd, and would like to get some context.

Today, many European countries (Germany, the Nordic countries, Italy) seem equally as developed as their western counterparts (UK, France, Spain), despite the difference of many centuries of colonizing vast swaths of the Earth.

How was it that the non-colonialist countries of Europe managed to keep up with the rapid pace of development in the colonialist countries, even defeating them in warfare at times, throughout three centuries of colonial expansion? Was it mostly due to simple proximity/trade to the colonialist powers, or was there more at play?

I ask for examples which predate the 19th century, because of course many of them (i.e. Germany, Italy) did indeed gain colonial possessions in the 19th century.

I am particularly curious about the Nordic countries. The Holy Roman Empire was the most powerful force in Europe (besides the Byzantine Empire) throughout most of the Middle Ages, and the Italian states had the Renaissance and much of the Mediterranean, so that must at least partially explain their situations. Most of Eastern Europe gives me the impression of lagging behind in their productive forces during this period, although I'd be delighted to hear examples on the contrary.

I'm currently writing an analysis of the great patriotic war and I wanted to know if there was a reason why people chose to be a partisan instead of in the military.

The Platonic Dialogues make several references to Socrates' children. Phaedo claims he has three sons. Do we have any idea who these children were/who they came to be?

Wagons seem to be relatively late to widespread adoption despite their invention centuries earlier, despite having twice the cargo capacity they were not widely adopted until later. What was responsible for the carts longevity as the primary cargo transport vehicle?

What effect did the Civil War have on infrastructure in the South? I saw someone claim on the internet (so it must be true!) that a part of why the South is so spread out is that the Civil War prevented the southern states from building the infrastructure necessary to maintain dense populations, like the North. Is this true and if so, why?

The Coldstream Guards, a regiment of the Guards division has operated actively since 1650. With the exception of National Guard regiments in the U.S. Army, infantry divisions open and close often. Is there a particular reason for this difference?

I know in 480 bc when Xerxes ordered the destruction of athens a small contingent of athenians defended the acropolis and eventually failed. But my question is why didn't the athenians make a solid stand at the acropolis? More then they did so i mean. I may be wrong but isn't the entire point of a main acropolis/citidel meant to be the ultimate fall back defensive position. I know they obviously couldn't of housed their entire city in one small zone but still. And on that note why not defend Athens as a whole? I know the athenian walls were built and rebuilt a few times, (I'm currently studying greek history and am not an expert) but did they really have no chance at mounting a suitable defense? Were the walls really that shitty/nonexistent?

When in the 1800s did the relationship between Britain and France—so hostile during the 1700s and early 1800s (as well as other periods in history)—change so drastically to the point of fighting alongside each other during World War I? Was it an alliance borne only out of necessity and the inter-connection of pre-Great War alliances?

Or was the world just unintelligible barbarians and post-cavemen?

I'm fascinated with pre-history, specifically the time before the formation of Rome and the Han Dynasty. These two were the biggest "organized civilizations" at around 0 B.C., but obviously there had to be a "before" that built up to it all.

What I'm curious about though, is just how far back that kind of organization existed. From what I've read, humans as we know it came about around 75,000 B.C. That is 77,000 years of human consciousness. Also, language has ALWAYS been a thing, just that there wasn't a visible form established yet. So is it fair to assume that for tens of thousand of years prior to "history", people were still living in structured, large-scale states?

I often hear that modern American accents are closer to 1600s British accents than modern British accents.

When America split from the British empire did the north/south/British all have the same accent?

Where and when did the southern accent originate? Was it around during the revolutionary or civil war? Was it influenced more by English or French dialect?

I was listening to a podcast about the civil war and was just curious.

Thanks.

Wheat was domesticated and then civilization really took off from my understanding, but was bread making discovered before or after that? Was it a cause for wheat to be domesticated? Also how did they figure out that process, or to even mill the wheat in the first place?

Thanks!

Apologies in advance I have non-existent knowledge about South America history, 'simple' (general, non-scholar) googling has not produced an answer I am looking for, therefore I would really appreciate any comment going into the details.

My understanding of Inca civilisation is we have not decoded/understood effectively its language system. I just discovered brief information about Inti (god of sun) and wonder how did we know of such legends (e.g. Inca creation story and feud between Viracocha and Inti) and who pass them down? I suspect modern historians decoded that from solely Khipus.

Did legends pass down to the surrounding areas like Chile or Ecuador? Do you know the rough timeline and how Inca culture influence the surrounding area, which explains how modern historians backtrack these amazing stories?

Thank y'all and stay safe!

Edit: MytholoGy and grammar

The USA brought German scientists, engineers and technicians to the U.S in Operation Paperclip. What was Israel's stance, reaction, etc to this?

Hello guys! I was studying a bit of history recently on the early modern era (1300-1600 ish), and especially how important religion played a role in the development of western civilization and colonization of America.

It seems that in history books we tend to separate the era Crusades from the era of Colonization, but in reality it seems these time periods slightly overlap. Officially, the Crusades for the Levant ended after the fall of Acre in 1291, but the Catholic Church still called Crusades for many years after that point, such as the Hussite Crusades, the Crusade of Varna, etc. And even after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Pope still tried to call Crusades even into the 16th century up until the Thirty Years War, even though almost all of them were called off. Also, it seems that Crusades were justified by Europe whenever there was a conflict of religion, not just against Muslims, and that's why there were Crusades called against the Pagan Baltics, the Protestant Hussites, the Gnostic Albigesians, etc.

The Age of Exploration technically begins with the conquest of the Canary Islands in 1376, as Europe began expanding into the Atlantic with colonies in both Subsaharan Africa and the Americas. The native peoples in Africa and America were undenyably pagans, and many Conquistadors like Cortez or even Columbus considered their expeditions to be a Holy mission to bring Christianity to the New World. The Pope would even grant authority to Spain and Portugal to conquer pagan nations for that very purpose. It was only after the Thirty Years War, as far as I can tell, that Europe adopted much more secularism.

From the perspective of the Crusaders, the age of Crusades had always been the "original" colonization from the late Middle Ages, and the Crusader states in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Baltic were basically German, French and Italian colonies run by monastic orders. From the perspective of the colonizers, the Spanish Empire was the greatest and most loyal benefactor for the Pope and the Catholic Church against the hegemony of France, and later on the Protestant faction of England and the Netherlands.

With all that being the case, why did the Catholic Church never officially declare a Crusade against any pagan nation in the Americas, Sub Saharan Africa, or Oceania? Moe specifically, why was there never any Crusader state (lands of a monastic military order) established in any of these same continents?

Yes, I know that the Soveign Knights of Malta bought some of the Virgin Islands in the 17th century, but that clearly wasn't a Crusade, nor was it religiously motivated.