I'm doing a project about a historical figure's personal library, and in writing about the origin of books I am trying to find some sources on how common book ownership was among lower socioeconomic status individuals in Britain, especially between the end of the Middle Ages to the 20th century. This historical figure was an Englishman who was quite wealthy and lived in the United States for the majority of his life. I know this is very vague, which is why I've been having a particularly tough time finding a potential source. Any input would be appreciated.

Hello, I have a question. I've got an assignment for college about the history of doors (I know), well in there I'm looking for an information that doesn't seem to be out there (or my researching skills suck). I'm looking if anyone out here knows anything about the timber that was imported to Ireland anywhere between 1900-1910. I need to know what kind of wood they used (mainly) for their furniture and doors. If there's anyone who could help me out, I would greatly appreciate it. :)

What were the leading causes of the Qing dynasty's demise?

My understanding of the Aztec concept is very superficial, so I don't know if this is a parallel I'm projecting on them or if there's an actual similarity there. Help?

We know the Vikings/Norse discovered the new world long before Columbus. Was there rumors in the time between the Norse and Columbus of a possible new land based from Norse trade and such?

Hi all -- I just got finished reading Chickenhawk, and while it was a great read the author generally held the same opinion as most Vietnam veterans about the ARVNs: that they were useless in combat and in general did not want to be there.

I originally thought this might simply be some old-fashioned 60s racism, but the author (and most others) spoke very highly of the Koreans.

So what gives? Were the South Vietnamese just incapable of fielding a decent military, or were the soldiers being forced into a war they didn't care about?

It is my understanding that the Etruscans got the alphabet from Western Greek migrants who settled on the Italian peninsula way back in the eighth century BCE. Unless I am mistaken, the West Greek alphabet didn’t contain the letter Ξ, which corresponded to the letter ס (samech) in the original Phoenician alphabet (I am guessing the Western Greeks concluded they had no use for this letter in their dialect and dropped it at some point). Yet, this letter is clearly present in the Etruscan alphabet, and I cannot find any explanation for this anywhere. Did the Etruscans inherit their alphabet before the Western Greeks dropped that letter? What gives?

We hear a lot about the financial cost about wars in the 20th Century however there seems to be less focus on how nations dealt with the cost of 18th and 19th Century Wars so I'd like to know a bit more about the financial aspect of the Napoleonic Wars.

Im not sure if this has been answered before but its something I've always wondered. It seems like it would be quite confusing to touch something then randomly get a shock and not have a good answer to what happened.

The Huns are stereo-typically seen as you archetypal nomadic warrior culture, deadly, fast horse archers and light cavalry cutting through their flatfooted opponents with superior skill and mobility. I don't know if that's even actually true, but if it is were the Romans in the 4th and 5th centuries blindsided by such ways of fighting? Was that what made them so dangerous?

As far as I can understand, China as we know it was once disperate groups of people, tribes and cultures that were united into one body. These people eventually became known as the han, named after the han empire. Throughout china's fracturous history, multiple long periods of dissolution and rebellion, these people always described themselves as han and always saw China as something that should be whole.

In my mind, Rome was the western equivalent. It united disparate people groups under one banner and especially after all groups were provided citizenship, they considered themselves roman. Rome and its successor byzantium went through similar hardships as China did (religious conflict, unrest, problems with tribal peoples ect) and had a similarly beurocratic system of governance. And yet every time China was tore apart it came back together and Rome did not.

In the west to claim to be connected to the legacy of the roman empire was prestigious thing and many rulers and nations claimed this. But in all that time outside some of the emperors of the east, no one made much of a concerted effort to bring it back together on the scale that was done in China every time it fell apart.

Why did these two parts of the world with so much in common go in such completely different directions?

Except for hunting. Most non-meat food rots, and i presume meat isn't enough to give all the supplements the body needs. And even if most of them were able to survive through the winter with a meat only diet, could hunters really bring enough to the entire tribe?

It seems that the population of China has (and still is) absolutely massive compared to more developed areas in Europe. How did this happen?

Hello all you people! I come here looking for your help and knowledge. I'm helping a friend with some research into ww2 infantry training camps for a reconstruction he's planning to do. I'm looking for references to ww2 US/British infantry training camps, any form of information, images,journal entries or descriptions that could give me a general idea on layouts, designs or anything that could give me a feel of the camp layout as a whole would be much appreciated :)!

Under the USSR, Russian became the official language of central Asia and eastern Europe, the Chinese emperor made Mandarin the official language, why didn't either Hindi or English become the dominant language in India?

I heard from somewhere that the people in the project were given specific tasks based around their expertise and were not told what the goal was because the Us needed to keep the making of the nuclear bomb a secret. When did the pieces of the puzzle fall into place for everyone?

I recall reading they existed but i have no idea what they were like, also are there roles any different from today?

Pretty straightforward question, who did people/the papers believe were the up and comers, new, rising stars during Richard Nixon’s 1st term? Primarily looking for House Reps. and people in general who seemed as though their career was going to take off but it just kind of didn’t.

Well, spring is arriving soon in the north hemisphere, but it autumn will come soon down under. Who was the first person (documented) that noticed this phenomena?

I believe it should be someone during the great navigations? Portuguese or Spanish maybe? I looked on google, but I found nothing.

Context; While talking to an Irish friend I noticed a lot of similarities in the way Ireland was treated by British landings and the way places like South Africa were. Mostly in that they had these extremely storied histories and established systems, the one day yohoho the English set sail and--with their missionaries in tow--try to normalise the culture to English standards.

However I'm not entirely familiar with the history of colonialism and would love to change that, I thought a good place to start would be asking here. Is Ireland an early example of English colonial efforts and if not what would be something that does count as said efforts in that time period?

Many kings and emperors were given tittles/nicknames like "the great, the simple, the conqueror, the bastard" etc. However i was reading about Gustavus Adolphus military reforms and his achievements and I wonder why doesn’t he have a tittle especially considering all of his contributions to Sweden rise to power. Was it just not a tradition in Sweden or his early death prevented the creation of a tittle for him or does he have a nickname that i dont know about?