After the Greenlanders and Icelanders left North America for good, were there rumours about the region in other parts of Europe? And if there were, did they have any influence on explorers of the Age of Discovery?

Hello! I would like to know how this subject was seen in Achaemenid Persia, specifically during the time of the war against the Greeks, as I am writing a story in which a character with these characteristics appears in this period. Any help would be appreciated ^^

The traditional narrative with Konishi Yukinaga's diplomatic career during the middle portion of the Imjin War is that he lied to Hideyoshi about what the Ming court was asking of him, and conspired to make it appear to both sides as if there was a surrender and concession, when in reality no such thing had been said. However, I've been hearing a new narrative now that, for the most part, Hideyoshi was in fact aware of what was going on. If that was the case though, then why did he become so angry at Konishi Yukinaga when negotiations failed that the other bugyo had to intercede on his behalf?

It seems like there's many versions of what exactly he did during the diplomatic part of the war, and I'm not sure if it's due to various theories or simply outdated scholarship not being pushed back against enough.

Seems like such a forgotten area in general. Kazakhstan is the 9th largest country in the world and it seems like nothing is really known about it. For example who lived there before the mongols conquered it? What government structure did they have and what religion were they.

What was the role of (Western) Belarus in early(pre 14th century) Grand Duchy of Lithuania? Did it influence the state more than baltic Lithuania?

Every arrowhead I have ever found or come across in person just seems very very dull and blunt. How did the arrowheads penetrate animals such as a mammoths skin? How were they able to use these to fight off foreign invaders and other tribes? These blunt arrows seem like they would do pretty minimal damage with just a standard recurve bow. Was it all up to just a good placed shot? Or were these early humans able to make some pretty heavy drawn bows?

I realize that the city was retaken by "Byzantines" but wouldn't that just make it part of the Empire of Nicaea?

Seems to be that from way back in the neolithic until relatively recent Russian colonial settlement, the region has only been inhabited by nomadic societies - from PIEs to, maybe arguably, the cossacks. Why hasn't a sedentary farming society developed in the region despite its richness in chernozem, especially in southern Ukraine?

As best I can understand, the explanations currently most accepted for how the Hebrew Bible was written are all derived from or influenced by the Documentary Hypothesis, which says that at a significant stage of the text's creation, a redactor known as the Priestly source took two separate traditions (a northern one about a god named El or Elohim, and a southern one about a god named Yahweh) and combined them in an effort to unify religious strands and show that Elohim and Yahweh were the same god.

I can see the value of an effort like this, and understand why it might be worthwhile to preserve, for example, both sources' version of the creation, despite a certain lumpiness caused by having their diverging notions placed side by side (for instance, the problem of whether God created men and women at the same time, or men first and then women later). But for the life of me, I can't work out what would make the redactor include verses that give different and contradictory answers to questions like the name of Moses' father-in-law, or the number of each animal on the Ark.

Why didn't the Priestly source just pick one?

From my understanding, medieval French poets took an interest in the original Arthurian legends and were responsible for crafting the more "modern" stories of King Arthur that we are familiar with today. If I recall correctly, these "French" stories of King Arthur then became very popular in various countries around mainland Europe. My question is how and why the French took such an interest in mythical stories from what would have been a rather remote region of their world at the time. Was there a particular significance or preexisting connection there that attracted the attention of both those early French poets and, later, larger swathes of European society?

I get that the provisions were agreed upon in Milan and issued later, but why else is it said to be a misnomer?

Is there any evidence that other Romans plotted to kill Augustus during his reign

Also i know he was the one who started the praetorian guard was that in response to attempts on his life

Throught my American high school and college history courses, I was constantly told that "Transatlantic Slave Trade was unique", a one-of-a-kind institution that had no precedent. In what ways? Certainly any kind of slavery is horrible but I want to know what features distinguished it from other forced labor before. For example, slavery was widespread in ancient Rome and Egypt, where they could be prisoners of war or just children of poor farmers, sold to pay of debts. Similarly, the Mongols enslaved thousands of Ukrainians (my own peoples) as well as other nations, forcing them to fight and farm, as well as selling them on markets as commodities. And yes, they were slaves for life. Even the Code of Hammurabi refers to treatment of slaves.

​

So my question is, in what ways was the Atlantic unique? And, could it be argued that this uniqueness is a 'modern world myth', if seen from a sociological point of view? Perhaps it's recency and very apparent modern effects give it its specialness ex post facto?

​

Thank you all.

It seems weird to me that a lot of parents (I'm from USA, unsure if this happens elsewhere) tell their kids that Santa is a real guy who constantly monitors their behavior and then rewards/punishes them accordingly. Some parents I've seen go to really elaborate lengths to strengthen the lie, like, letters to and from Santa, cosplay, the elf on a shelf thing, etc.

Has this always been a thing? If so why? It seems like a lot of work that'll make it so your kid is less thankful to you about Xmas gifts, and they'll feel betrayed in the long-term when they find out, so why do that at all??

Considering how dense and academically-oriented Kapital is, would the average working class person in Europe have been able to read it all, let alone understand it? Is there substantial proof that Kapital of all books was this influential among working-class Europeans in the 1860s, or is Engels’s attribution merely a pleasantry?

Was Hitler the sole reason for the awful events that transpired in WWII and the Holocaust, or was he more of a figurehead to shift public blame to? People always say if they could go back in time they would kill baby Hitler, or make those jokes about Hitler going to art school, but if Hitler was out of the picture would the Nazi Party still have grown in power, and would the Holocaust still have happened?

In my History of the Soviet Union and Government of Russia courses, I somewhat remember the professors making a statement such as, "During the 1960's the Soviets were at their peak and were only marginally behind the United States in regard to both SoL and Military power".

How true is this statement? Ever since those statements I regarded the USSR as almost overtaking the Americans during the first half of the 60's. Is there another portion of Soviet history where they were at their "strongest"? Were the Americans really much farther ahead of the Soviets than my professors and I think? (Tbh course was years ago I can't remember the exact statement) I can't seem to find any actually good answers online at the moment. Any input would help, thanks!

I’ve been doing a lot of work lately in countries who had major civil wars and internal conflicts. In many of the cases, the wars are protracted decades long affairs; no one decisively wins or loses, sometimes indefinitely. Why didn’t this happen in the US? Was the war as short as it seems comparatively speaking? I suspect the west expansion and wars with Indians had something to do with it.

Similarly, civil wars sometimes make the nation vulnerable to outside forces. Why didn’t any other nation “kick over our sandcastle” during or shortly after the conflict ended? Is this because Europe was largely occupied with internal affairs and Mexico wasn’t strong/established enough?

I hope that makes sense. The question makes perfect sense in my head. I'm still early on when he is talking about how Christianity spread and how it governed the life of different peoples in the Empire.

He mentioned how through Christianity the masses had more of a say through the local church and bishops. Were these people and the aristocrats among them mostly of Greek origin or were native peoples given a say. Was there many Italian settlers or other peoples of the west that moved when the Empire was whole?

While I'm asking about Egypt and the Levant I'd like to know about any eastern part of the Empire.

Edit: changed hole to whole. I thought about it in my first draft too. Lol