Sulla seems to have been as accomplished, if not more so, yet Caesar has a lot more fame.

Mny thks

This might sound like a weird question but hear me out.

It seems to me that significant amount of historical 'basic facts' (for lack of better words) are structurally similar - they frequently include some combination of quite finite set of categories: eg. person, personal role, place, political/religious entity, event, group, date etc. Most of those categories are quite rigidly set, particularly in the political and military history.

For example utterances like "Person X died in the year Y in the place P according to the source S1" or "The kingdom of K1 fought the battle of B with the kingdom of K2 in the year Y according to the source S2", encompass thousands of actual sentences to be found in history books. At first glance taking and sharing notes of such 'basic sourceable facts' in some predetermined, common and conventional form seem to me, non historian, like a good idea.

Yet I never heard about anyone doing that, so either I've heard too little or it actually isn't a good idea at all. So - if the former, what systems are used, and if the latter, why is that?

So we know a lot about the treatment of Jews from the rise and fall of the Nazis. But how was life for German Jews after the war? How did they go back to what life was like before the persecution of Jews? How were they treated by Germans after the war because I don’t believe they just woke up one day and suddenly erased their hatred towards them overnight.

What did Churchill think about Indians and Hindus?

Looks like he said: "Indians are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

I think the problem is that that quote was never verified. It seems to be from a private conversation.

Both have had ancient experiences with Christians, St Thomas in India, the Ethiopians in Africa were famously Christian, but India, while it actually has a large number of Christians as an absolute metric, is not by percentage very Christian. But Africa, where it isn´t Muslim, is mostly Christian, although with syncretism also present and some native beliefs persist. India was ruled by the British from 1853 to 1947, and had tremendous influence in the century before that. Africa was ruled, often indirectly just as India was, for less time.

Were the Europeans just more interested in converting the Africans for some reason?

I'm reading conflicting reports, and I'm naturally sceptical of any claims that China might make to justify their conquest.

The Alexander Romance was composed at some point before 338 AD (when a Latin translation was made of the Greek original), about Alexander the Great. It was widely disseminated and translated and revised in many different languages and places, from western Europe to Persia. It seems to have been popular in medieval times, but less talked about nowadays.

Why is it that other cycles of tales about historical or legendary figures, like those of King Arthur, Gilgamesh, the Homeric epics, Aeneas, Hesiod, Beowulf, the Kalevala, Metamorphoses, and so on, are still widely read today, and the Alexander Romance is so little known, and seems to be much less in the "popular consciousness" than the others?

I know people during the WWI reffered to it (WWI) as the Great War, and the term world war wasn’t used those days. When did people realize that the conflict was global and called it “World War”?

Also why do the Japanese still actively deny these claims? And why did the US befriend them as soon as they did after all that happened in ww2?

Sorry if this is a lot of questions, I’m just pretty curious rn

How did pregnant women in the past know that alcohol would affect their baby? Did they know that it would affect it? If not, did that contribute to the higher rates of miscarriages and stillborn babies? Did society have higher rates of developmental disorders because of this?

Was it a complete replacement of any kind of formal imprisonment and/or capital punishment like we have in modern society?

Would it allow a significantly wealthy person to kill others at random and suffer no more than a monetary loss?

It is my understanding that even a king had a weregild price, does that mean someone could have gotten away with murdering a king if they were rich enough?

If this is how murder was dealt with, how were other crimes like sexual assault and theft dealt with?

Big cities during the Industrial Revolution are frequently described as horrible dirty areas of pollution, overcrowding, disease, and violence. Working conditions were terrible, wages were next to nothing, and working hours were routinely 12+ hours. With all this in mind, why did we see a constant immigration of workers from rural to urban areas? What could have possibly made life in the city better than in the farms with how terrible the urban conditions were?

I've found this subject surprisingly difficult to research. All I can find are texts about the first parliament-like organizations, as in England, as well as occasional references to gatherings like the Estates-General. I'm assuming that since this was well before Early Modern absolutism, the monarch couldn't just sit down, summon a scribe, and send out a decree that it's illegal to put sweaters on sheep.

So what was the process? Were parliament-like assemblies, like Estates-General, the norm? Were laws mostly uncodified until the monarch judged a relevant case and established precedent, similar to modern civil law systems? Could the monarch act unilaterally to create new legislation?

​

I'm also curious about law-making throughout history in general, if anyone has additional insights.

Thanks in advance!