Was their population higher before or after colonization?

First of all, the Scandinavians were pretty good at sailing the northern seas and had good trade connections within the region. The regions that share a language and are not isolated from each other usually don't diverge into different languages.

Second, when the split started occuring, the regions were held together by the Kalmar union, and as such unified under one monarch and one administration. Surely the monarchs would've seen the divergence and tried to hold the language in its unified form for simplicity of administration - so why didn't they?

I remember reading a page elsewhere that in the winter of 1450, a pack of wolves entered Paris through a breach in the walls of the city, and killed around 40 Parisians before being driven back to Notre Dame Cathedral and slaughtered. However, I have yet to find a verified source on this particular event - has there ever been a book or article written about this? The wikipedia page has since been deleted, I can't seem to find that vital, first verified source for it, unless it's an urban legend after all.

I am about to write an independent study history paper as my last paper for my History BA degree. I have been planning on writing this paper for a long time using the overarching topic the "History of Logistics."

Yet, I just got into a big discussion / argument with my professor over the role of the historian as a Moralist / Judge. I have thought about this and I lean on the side of the necessity of presenting some form of historical judgement.

A lot of times the historian becomes one of the most knowledgeable people on their particular area of study and may understand nuances a little better allowing them to judge a situation.

Discounting "moral presentism" which I found previously discussed on this subreddit, could anyone provide a for and against argument or provide good reads discussing this issue. I feel like this "presenting the facts as I discovered them and expertly interpreted them" is so ingrained into the "historian culture" that allowing ones own opinion (attempted to transplant into the understanding of the historical time period) is so looked down upon that one is instantly discounted.

THANK YOU FOR ANY AND ALL HELP!

More specifically, because fermented drinks last much longer than plain water; did islamic societies drink alcohol and how did this work with the religious command to abstain?

I hope my question makes sense. I guess I'm just confused as to why the term "Latin" continued to be used separately from "Roman"? I know that there were other Latin tribes in Italy at one point. However, as Rome grew in influence, and eventually expanded over all of Italy and then the Mediterranean, wouldn't their cultural identities have merged? Why would the Romans still use the term "Latin" to describe their language instead of replacing it with "Roman"? Did a distinct Latin ethnic identity continue to exist in some form?

[deleted]

Obviously, they would not have all spoken the same languages, but is there any study on what languages were most common? Would it mostly have been languages spoken in West Africa? And for that matter, why did those languages die out? Were there direct policies of linguistic oppression against slaves or was it due to there being too many languages and no incentive to keep them?

For example France or the HRE?

In my WWII encyclopedia I borrowed from the school library, it mentions "Apart from the Japanese giants, the 'King George V' Class had the heaviest armor of any of the battleships of the period, including the Bismarck." Why is that the case?

One thing I always came across when I was a kid was how books about the War of Independence would describe Colonists refusing to eat cornbread during the harsh winters and George Washington quite commonly having to find white bread so the soldiers don't starve.

Even college level literature give reference to this especially during the Valley Forge campaign.

I am wondering whats the reason for this?

I've yet to take AP Euro, but I just like history too much (Can you do that?) and I decided to ask my question here. Thank you r/historians, in advance of answering my question.

Also, follow up question, I've read that Napoleon and, subsequently, the Napoleonic Wars were throwing off the European balance of power. Is this true? How so? Explain.

I was scrolling through the booklist that another user introduced me to, I noticed there was a very distinct lack of books on people. So, I was wondering, do you have any book suggestions regarding...

• Caesar
• Crassus
• Pompey
• Cicero and other politicians
• Augustus
• Antony
• Lepidus
• Other politicians.

I'm also looking for books on important emperors, like Constantine. Things I'm interested in are the politics and exploits, and maybe some trivia, about these men.

Thanks in advance.

Obviously, the Achaemenid empire was quite cosmopolitan due to it's size and importance, comprising of many religions and ethnic groups. Often, however, it is said that Zoroastrianism was the state religion, but I've heard recently that the vast majority of people, including those in the court, followed a proto-Zoroastrianism or rather the religion that Zoroaster reformed, while what we think of as Zoroastrianism was a minor movement or more of an intellectual movement. First, is this claim true? Second, to what extent was it the state religion? Finally, third, what did Zoroastrianism look like to the people of the Achaemenid Empire?

[deleted]

While doing a little background reading on Dante's Inferno, I came across a mention of Dante's guardian Brunetto Latini claiming in his work Li Livres Dou Tresor that Mohammad was a schismatic priest which was a claim I had never heard before. As I dug more I found this claim was common during the Middle Ages, and found it stated to be found in other works such as the chansons de geste, Piers Plowman, and The Fall of the Princes. They variously claim he was a Cardinal who lost his bid for the Papacy or a monk/priest.

I would read more from these specific works but unfortunately I cannot find a modern translation of these works online in the public sphere, and any sort of google search pulls up a lot of trash articles and websites, and so I turn to you oh wise ones. While I understand that there were numerous claims of Mohammad being a heretic, a false prophet, a sorcerer, and even worse by Christian critics of the era, I'm really interested in this specific claim as its one that's completely new to me and I'd like to know more about them.

Edit: I know that it was technically already dangerous, but i was wondering when parents started to stop letting their kids bike alone.

[deleted]