Were Catholic immigrants a very Educated population, or was there method of schooling seen as more rigorous?

The Government of India (Prior to Independence in 1947) would declare war, participate in international legal treaties, sign the UN Charter and engage in stuff that you'd normally expect a sovereign government engage in. What was the legal basis of England's overlordship of the Sub-continent? What ties did the Government of England have with the British Government in India? What was the legal relationship between them like? How did the Independence affect these ties and what changed?

What was the reaction in the Muslim world when the Christians reconquered Iberia from the Muslims? I know it was a process that took centuries but when the final Islamic sultanate fell in Iberia, what was their immediate reaction? Do they see it much like how Christians viewed the fall of Constantinople, which also took centuries to conquer? Do Muslims today still wish Al-Andalusia survived? Do they see it as conquered/occupied Muslim lands?

What benefits are really derived from knowing Latin in researching the history of Western Civilization?

How many arrows could an archer take with him to battle? after they ran out of arrows what did they do? did they just stand there? did they also carry another weapon?

[deleted]

I started studying history recently because, in all honesty, I don't want to look ignorant. So I read J.M. Roberts' "The New Penguin History of the World"; it's 1200 pages that starts at cavemen and ends in 2007. I also read Patriots' History of the United States up to the industrial era part.

But it's becoming a drag to plow through history books like this. I find reading fiction/literature, science, or biographies much more engrossing and memorable (e.g. Hemingway, Tolstoy, Paulo Coelho, Van Gogh). Though there was a historical fiction US Civil War book (House Divided) that was fun to read.

I want to be curious about history, but don't think it's worthwhile to force myself to read history books just to feel more informed.

What is it about history that stimulates your curiosity? Is there a different mentality about history that would be good for me to develop?

Looking at a lot of the most famous philosophers and mathematicians a lot of them are from Greece. Is there any reason?

Now I lay me down to sleep....

You know the one, but I’m just curious if others had similar prayers such as various pagan religions or any other ancient religions or ancient civilizations?

If so what were they?

Franco was from Ferrol, in Galicia, and I'm not sure if he spoke Galician as well as Spanish. However, I do know that he suppressed other languages in Spain that were not Spanish such as Basque and Catalán. Did he do the same with Galician?(Galego)

[deleted]

As a little project, I decided I would try to find out what the precursor of every modern country was. Some have been rather straight-forward, but I'm stuck at the Netherlands. The closest I can find would be the Dutch Republic that was created in 1581, but upon further reading, I learned that there were several independent Dutch counties within the Holy Roman Empire a few centuries earlier. Is there something even earlier than this? I know the Romans had occupied the area a long time beforehand, but I wouldn't consider that, as the Dutch people aren't descended from the Romans (or at least, I don't think),

I'm sure this has been asked before, although I couldn't find any definite answer, but if Japan never bombed pearl harbor, and if Hitler never invaded the Soviet Union, (fatal flaws in my opinion) would there be a chance of a German/Japanese empire still around today?

The title pretty much covers it: how did they do it? The only rudimentary ways of lighting fires (mirrors, flint and steel, friction, etc) I can think of wouldn't work on a candle wick, at least not effectively, so how did they light candles?

The son, Henry The 8th.

I guess Lancasterian would be an easy no, considering they were few and since Henry VIII was a Lancasterian himself from a paternal line, he would be seen more affiliated with them "one of us" from their point of view.

Yorkist would also see this as the same, considering how his mother, Margaret of York, would've been heir to the throne with the death of her father Edward, uncle Richard III and her brothers, the two princes, had it not been for Henry VII's cutting in line and placing himself as King, yet since the son of Margaret would be the next ruler regardless of who the father was, even if that was Henry VII himself, it's easy to also see why the Yorkist also support him.

But were there any Lancasterian/Yorkist loyalist who didn't see it this way? Perhaps a Lancasterian saw Henry VIII as more affiliated with the Yorkist? Or a Yorkist saw Henry VIII's blood as tainted with Lancasterian blood, and therefore was not a 'pure' Yorkist? Has been any recorded source where it was expressed that there was still doubt on Henry VIII's legitimacy as King due to his father's background?

What do you suppose would have been the case had a 'pure' Yorkist arrived at the scene, perhaps one of the princes of the Tower of London? Would you think that people would view them as more legitimate, assuming that they accept they are real princes of the tower?

It's a paper related to GoT and how accurate their portrayal of these things are.

Please help.

Did the French foreign legion fight in the Vietnam war?

Most but not all Republics in Europe follow a pretty conventional naming style of [Nationality] Republic, like how France is officially the French Republic, or Portugal the Portuguese Republic. Ireland followed this trend during it's revolutionary period in the early 20th century, officially naming itself the Irish Republic twice, once during the Easter Rising in 1916, and again in 1919 during the First Dail (Parliament). Even when Ireland achieved only partial independence with Dominion status, it's name in Irish was Saorstát Éireann, with "Saorstát" literally translated as Free State, but more sincerely meaning Republic before the term "Poblacht" gained popularity.

Why then did in 1948 did Ireland change it's official description (not name, as that is constitutionally defined) to "Republic of Ireland" when "Irish Republic" had both historical precedent, and was the most common styling convention in Europe?