Why are people so interested in these minor occurrences that in the end, don't majorly effect history?

Well I am south korean and studying history at university.

But some korean people believe that there was an ancient Korean Empire 10000years ago call 'Hwhan'.

They think this Hwhan empire had occupied total Asia continient, half of the russia, and even America and Europe.

This is really awkward theory and there is no any evidence to prove it. But they said there is evidence.

For example in korea word mother is 'Um- Mah'. So they said this Um mah word changed to 'Amen'. So the even Jesus was Korean :/ And you know, their evidences are total shit.

Fortunately there are no historian accept this stupid Hwhan Empire. They said it's just a trash made by a man who wants to masturbate with fake history.

But some people still believe it is true. And even some senetor of korean argue it is ture history. And they attack normal historians. Because normal historians are jews and japanese who wants to 'hide' their Hwhan empire.

Is there any country have same problem like this?

I wanted to buy his books, as I'm Pole. Hoverer, I found that many sources claim that he is an anti-Semite. Is this true? Are his books biased?

What's the mainstream consensus on the early Japanese Emperors? Did Jimmu exist? Are the ages just embellished and exaggerated? Or are early figures like Jimmu entirely mythical?

My first thought we be to get in contact with an Allied spy, but that would mean I would have to know who that is and how to find them.

Another thing I'd imagine is possible is to rent a boat and just sail across the English Channel, but that seems unrealistic.

It's seems really difficult for an individual to switch sides in a war in any situation.

Edit: Added paragraphs of some initial thoughts

More specifically, what did they use against bears and other hostile wildlife?

Any connection to the Chinese Han?

This came up over my family vacation this past week: I was talking with my sister and she, being frustrated at some local government red tape, referred to it as "Byzantine." I responded that that was a racist term and they preferred to call themselves Rhomaioi, not Byzantines. So when and why did the term pick up such negative connotations instead of just referring to the great, 1000-year empire of the Eastern Romans? I would assume it was after the particular historian decided to start referring to the empire centered on Constantinople/old-Byzantion, as the Byzantine Empire.

Thanks for your time in reading this and maybe responding. I've been a long-time reader of this subreddit but I think this might be my first actual posting of a question.

After the Romans left Britain (and their relics remained) did the people who lived there centuries later (after 410AD) ever leave any preserved letters/writing questioning who built the previous structures (like Hadrian's Wall)?

Would they have to go to university and take a similar route to nowadays?

I’ve heard horror stories of doctors from these times that sounded incredibly inept at their job.

The Celtic tribes of Gaul, Brittania and Germania demonstrated exquisite craftsmanship, construction, and warfare and had access to the necessary materials and knowledge to create a more organized, well functioning society, yet progress seemed to have stagnated.

You'd think their ability to create some of the greatest iron weaponry and tools that they'd use them for more efficient farming and construction. So what happened?

It seems to me that the region surrounding a large river that already featured a thriving port (New Orleans) would have been a prime target for industrialization. While New Orleans remains a major trade hub, move a little to the north and you'll find a region that is relatively underdeveloped and features some of the poorest parts of the US. How did this state of affairs come to pass?

How did anarchist economies function for several years? Also can anyone recommend a book about anarchist polities in practice?

[deleted]

I would have thought that professional historians would use CE/BCE conventions for dating. Is this true, and why has there been no penetration into broader areas of history writing, such as Wikipedia and school textbooks?

Say I live in a small town in the Reich, would I know about the allied and soviet troops?

Reading The Stand by Stephen King, the antagonist Randall Flagg often compared to Hitler and he said something about the other society visiting (as a ruse) and it got me to this question.

Side note: Great book if you're into reading.

Decline of the Emperor's power was a gradual process, but was there some decisive point when it was generally recognized that Northern Italy was no longer part of the empire? Were there any negotiations or treaties? Or did the Italian states continue to pay lip service to the emperor until the dissolution of the Empire?

And what about the Netherlands? Before the Dutch rebellion, it was mostly part of the empire, but the wasn't the rebellion against the Spanish crown, not the HRE? Or is it considered to be basically the same thing as both Philip II and Ferdinand I were Hapsburgs?

I hope this question is not against the rule that forbids asking about basic facts, as there is more to it than just a date. If it is against the rules, I apologize.

Is it a dedication? I am assuming that all princeps held the office of pontifex maximus but I wouldn't have thought it the dominant title.

Hello. First I have to say I love this subreddit and follow it closely.

Thank you all for the amazing job you do answering questions.

My question comes from reading about the time Caesar first walked on Rome and threatened a tribune of the plebs to stand aside as Caesar plundered the treasury of Rome that was in a temple.

Since cities at the time kept all their treasury in temples, are there any accounts during the time of Rome (from Republic to the fall of Rome in 476) of a group of thieves planning a major heist to take the whole treasury of a city(doesnt have to be the city of Rome here - any city will do).

I would love to know even if they failed. Also, if there any books that talk about it. Thanks in advance for the help.

The right winged militia group “The 3%” say they based the name of their group off their claim that only 3% of colonists formed militia and fought the British during the Revolutionary War.

Is there any truth to this claim? Thank you.