This question is inspired by the recent Black Panther movie where two technologically advanced nations essentially hid from the rest of humanity for all time. Ignoring the fantasy SciFi aspects, this behaviour seems contrary to what I know of human history.

It seems like every nation in history has made it a habit to expand borders when possible and exert influence on neighbouring kingdoms. Plenty of examples of nations attempting to limit cultural importation (blue jeans in the USSR) but even in those examples the host nation still attempts to export their own cultural products.

So have there been nations that tried to fully cut themselves off from the rest of the world and not try expand their sphere of influence or seize land or resources from neighboring states?

One of the more interesting unexplored areas in the LOTR film trilogy is Gandalf's search for traces of the One Ring in Gondor's archives, local lore and myth, etc. I don't recall whether Tolkien went into more detail in the books, but it's a bit of a shame that we didn't see Tolkien pulling out all his philological experience to write about Gandalf running around Middle Earth on his research project like a medievalist Indiana Jones.

Anyway, this made me wonder: How would a trained, professional historian go about searching for the One Ring? What kinds of historiographical and theoretical obstacles -- aside from the very real supernatural critters trying to kill one -- would a historian face in tracking the Ring through Middle Earth's history?

Was there any trade or immigration to speak of? Or were they fairly unknown to one another before the raids started?

The role of miners' strikes in the revolution in Russia in 1991 was significant, as it was one of several key events that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Russian Federation.

How significant was it? Was it crucial?

Did Yeltzin use miners to acquire power? Did miners benefit from the revolution?

I remember some guy saying that it didn't collapse but was formally and intentionally dissolved by, I think, Boris Yeltsin?? And that he did it so that he could obtain the power held by Gorbachev for some reason like he didn't like how Gorbachev ran things and that Gorbachev was about to sign some deal or some shit so Yeltsin took power from him by quickly dissolving the Soviet Union since Gorbachev was the supreme leader of the Soviet Union but Yeltsin was governor of Russia itself and thus dissolving the Union would leave Yeltsin as the de facto leader of the new Russia. Is this true or nah?

I have recently realized that the foundation for today's nutritional and dietary consensus, behaviors and views are advancements in medical and biological sciences. We know that certain foods contain micro nutrients that the body requires.

Were humans, before said advancements were made, aware that a somewhat balanced diet is essential to health or even survival? Did they know that vegetables contain what we know as vitamins today? Were they aware of the fact that eating too much of the same food results in deficiencies? If so, how? Did humans before medical science establish these facts on an empirical basis?

During the Nazi Regime were there any records of the camps populations in mass numbers scheming or plotting to rebel against the Nazi's by either over taking the camp, attacking the guards at mass or alternatively taking a mass protest such as sabotage? If there were instances of this, where they able to carry through with it or were they discovered beforehand?

I recognise that other than sabotage there won't be too many individuals or groups who would have tried to revolt, due to immediate swift punishment, no probable escape, as well as their own health and fitness at the time playing a part in attempting something like this. However, I am curious if anyone knows of any instances?

So, pardon the question about Alexander Hamilton, but I can't get it out of my head.

I know it is well-established that Hamilton's hands were not clean of slavery and that he wasn't quite the abolitionist some have portrayed him as, but what is less clear to me is if he himself was a slaveholder.

I have seen both recent essays argue both for and against him being a slaveholder, and know various Biographers have also taken both sides, So what's the truth? Or is it too murky to tell?

Europeans never completely forgot about Greenland even when the colonies got abandoned in the 15th century. So why does the knowledge about "Vinland", or more generally the existence of a landmass west of Greenland, seem to disappear in Europe during the Middle Ages?

I live in a smaller town and I want to try to find artifacts from the original town so I’m trying to find the original city dump but have no clue where to start

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if the occidental powers (France, Northumbria ...) raided scandinavia in answer to vikings raid (like a vendetta) and how? If they did not why did they not take revenge?

Thank you and have a nice day

For example, could the daughter of a Baronet marry a Duke?

I have been reading up on Denmark in the 12-14th centuries. So far I have only read works in English, and in reference to aristocratic magnate families the most common word that I have come across in the historiography is “clan”. For instance, the Hvide family of Archbishop Absalon is usually referred to as the “Hvide Clan”.

My question is, why is clan the word that is used? Were the noble clans of medieval Denmark (or wider Scandinavia) structurally or practically different than noble families in England, France or elsewhere? Does the term clan better capture some essential characteristic of the way aristocratic power was exercised in medieval Scandinavia? Or is it simply a quirk of translation?

Thank you.

Edit:

Perhaps a better way to phrase the question would be: How, if at all, did the Danish, aristocratic clans in the high medieval period differ from aristocratic families elsewhere in Europe? Why does the English word “clan” appear so frequently in the historiography of medieval Denmark?

There is a curious passage in Henry Mayhew’s London labour and the London poor:-

“The French dead horse, then, is made a source of nearly 5s. higher receipt than the English. On my inquiring the reason of this difference, and why the blood, &c., were not made available, I was told that the demand by the Prussian blue manufacturers and the sugar refiners was so fully supplied, and over-supplied, from the great cattle slaughter-houses, that the private butchers, for the trifling sum to be gained, let the blood be wasted.”

So why did 1840s sugar refineries need huge supplies of blood from the slaughterhouses?

I saw Iphikrates/Roel Konijinendijk talking about his new book on Twitter and he said that an overwhelming majority of 19th/early 20th century classics scholarship was done by Germans, why is that?