How much Prussian was Prussia? did the leaders speak prussian? was Prussia more German than Prussian? were prussians able to understand german and vice versa?

I'm talking Around 1800, long time after the formation of Prussia, but 70 years before the German Empire

Shortly after World War II, the French were trying to reestablish their rule in their colonies/mandates. From what I've read, the British lobbied the US to support the French in the French's desire to take back Indochina, in part because the British Foreign Office didn't want the US to undermine European colonial empires since they were afraid of blowback on their own empire. During the same period, though, I've read that they pressured the French to pull out of their mandate in Syria.

What was the difference between these two situations that made the British act in such different ways?

After crossing the Rubicon and becoming the dictator of Rome, Ceasar amassed a huge amount of political power/control. Some amongst the populace even referred to him as 'King' on one ocassion (which he admittedly rebutted). So why is it that we refer to Augustus as the first Emperor of Rome? Was Julius Ceasar not an Emperor in all but name?

On from this, what changes did Augustus bring to Rome which differentiates his power to his uncle that grants him the title?

For the purpose of this question, I'd like to confine the period to that of the Romanov dynasty.

I've always thought it curious why the royal brides for future czars were chosen from seemingly minor royal families. For example, Catherine the Great's father was the ruler of a small principality and her family was by and large, impecunious.

The last Empress of Russia, Alexandra Feodorovna, came from a princely cadet branch.

Was there any particular reason for choosing brides from minor royal families? I can't imagine they would bring in much wealth or prestige marrying into Russian Royal Family.

Why weren't they chosen from the great European royal families at that time, such as England, France, Spain, etc?

I mean, languages change pretty dramatically over time, and the Egyptians were around for an incredibly long period. Most of us couldn't understand English from just a few hundred years ago. Aren't the hieroglyphs on the Rosetta stone different from hieroglyphs from those made thousands of years earlier?

Surprisingly hard to google those simple questions:

1. What was the reason why man changed material from flint to metal in weapons?
2. How long could a flint knife be?
3. What are the advantages of metal weapon over stone weapon?
4. Is it true that flint weapons couldn't get as long as metal ones, because they would break?

I 'know' most of the answers from a general knowledge, but I'm writing a quasi-historical book and I'd like to look into some serious sources, but the one I've got only talk about the specifics of the found knives, but don't explain why people transitioned and why people didn't use 'stone swords'. The purpose of the book is to explain the philosophy of arms and armour to people working in entertainment industry (games, movies, etc.)

​

Thanks in advance!

I’ve heard about this library but don’t know too much about it hoping someone could tell me more

Reading up on this event in Spain during the time of the defeat of the Moors. Limpieza de sangre which was a Blood Purity ruleset similar to the One Drop Rule in the United States, but based on Religious groups. But how could they tell what Religion a person was from their genetics? Unless Religion and Race were synonymous terms back then.

If so, what genetic characteristics defined a Christian from a Jew from a Muslim? Because they all come from the same region of origin and same root religion, so I am confused how they would been racially different back then.

I've been reading 'Vanity Fair', and I have the impression that if one of the upper class fops were to bring home an opera singer, it would be like his modern day counterpart bringing home a porn actress. (If his parents also liked watching the same porn.)

Today, the reverse would be the case. I'm imagining some cultural writer with the 'New Yorker' fawning over a renowned opera singer and her blueblooded Knickerbocker husband in their Manhattan townhouse.

So how did we get from A to B?

Edit: typo. Meant to ask "At what point...?"

I'm aware the Franks were a Germanic people who predominantly migrated into northern Gaul, and who, with Christianisation, founded a kingdom in the 5th century that would come to encompass a very large proportion of Western Europe by the early 9th century.

What I've never quite understood is their transformation from a Germanic-speaking people to a Romance-speaking people. How did a people shift languages like this? What prompted it? When did the change begin and when was it complete? Did some of the Carolingian realms remain Frankish, or at least for a longer period than they did in Francia/West Francia?

I was just thinking about the fact that realistically speaking the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem/other crusader states likely had majority non-Christian majorities. Or at least had non Catholic majorities. During the various crusades/religion based fights did Muslims/Jews/Non-Christians/Catholics make up a noticeable amount of the Christian led armies? Would this kind of thing even be recorded in history. I mean I know that non-upper class history has way less written primary sources so I can imagine scribes not really care about things like the ethnic and religious compositions of armies.

Secondary question that probably deserves a different thread: Did Catholic occupation of sizeable parts of the Middle East have a noticeable impact on the religion and ethnic make up? Did the number of Christian increase? Did the western Europeans who settled leave any lasting religious or cultural impact on the region?

The common narrative I heard was that the Soviet army encouraged the poles to rise up in Warsaw to fight the Germans. with the expectation that the majority of the poles that fought were nationalists. The Soviets denied the allies the right to airborne drop supplies into the city, and they moved a mostly polish armored division away from the city.

This seems to hold water. especially when you consider the fact that it was not the first time they were cruel towards the poles. i.e. the Katyn Massacre. Also when you consider what happened after the war. The Polish nationalists were now outnumbered the polish communists and Poland became a satellite state under the Soviet Union.

How much stronger/sharper/tougher of a metal is iron over bronze weaponry?

Were there significant events documented or attesting to big battles between iron and bronze weapons?

I’m mostly curious about meals eaten at home - did families tend to eat the same thing every day, or was it more varied like we are now? Did they each 3 meals a day or was it different?