During the Enlightenment, England was famous for having an unrivaled coffeehouse culture. Now, the English are famous for being tea-drinkers. How and why did this shift happen?

Hello.

I'm writing a thesis on how the British Raj affected language use in India post-indepence. So, my question is if someone can point me in the direction of some good sources about linguistic imperialism in India and/or the language policies that the British Raj enforced in India.

Please note that English is not my first language, so I apologise if this is worded oddly. If you need me to be more specific, please ask and I will do my best!

Edit: Specified time period.

Can anyone tell me more about these studies?

The documentary in question is called "Mixed Britannia" from BBC Two.

I am by no means an expert when it comes to Chinese and Roman history, but I've always been told that Han-era China was more advanced scientifically than Imperial Rome and it honestly seems to be the opposite. Rome could produce very high-quality glass, had cranes, concrete, generally slightly more advanced hydraulic engineering, much higher-quality steel, Polyboloi (repeating Scorpions) and even knowledge of the steam engine (though they did nothing with it). When people discuss China under the Han Dynasty's rule the main technological feats they mention are silk (which the Romans simply couldn't produce due the lack of silk worms where they lived), windmills and gunpowder (2 things which were only discovered much later, with Rome actually having watermills (though not windmills) before the Chinese), the first seismograph, farming technology, kites and the Chu-Ko-Nu (repeating crossbow). There are of course many other technologies which the Hans had but the Romans didn't but those are the main ones mentioned. But whilst inventing things such as the first seismograph and repeating crossbows is very advanced, it really seems to me that the Romans were more advanced in a purely technological sense, and that many people appear to misinterpret these questions and describe the Han Dynasty as being more advanced because they invented more during their rule whereas the Romans invented very little themselves but adopted technologies from other ancient civilisations around them.

So, in absolute, which civilisation was more advanced purely technologically and scientifically (or were they roughly equal but developed in different ways)?

EDIT: neither the Romans nor the Han Chinese had windmills.

I have heard a bit of German family lore from the war and I am wondering how historically plausible it is. My partner's grandfather was said to have wanted to be a teacher when the war started but was conscripted and assigned to a U-boat in the Mediterranean. He then survived the war by being captured and brought to Egypt as a POW. However, this seemed odd to me with the particularly voluntary nature of modern submarine services. Were there conscripted soldiers assigned to submarines in the German Navy? Is this a plausible thing that could have happened?

Sorry I’m not very specific with the time period but reason being is that I’m kind of curious of the earliest time period possible and time periods after that and how much it had progressed or deprogressed due to for example culture. If you could tell me any time periods you know of, that’ll be really great, thanks.

Nowadays, Romulus Augustulus is often considered the final Roman emperor, but between the Byzantines, Julius Nepos, and the way the Roman state continued under Odoacer and Theoderic, that's a fairly arbitrary choice. How did we arrive at it? When was Romulus first called 'the last Roman emperor'? Who did the Byzantines consider the final western emperor?

I recently started watching season 1 of Vikings and something that’s bothering me is that if such a relatively large portion of the town did indeed raid other towns and villages, would that not have a rather large effect on the economic system making everyday goods quite expensive for those who didn’t take part of the raids?

Was this a problem during this time or am I missing something?

When the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia, they sent the entire population to the countryside to work in the fields. Did anybody stay behind to keep electricity running? Or phone lines up? To man the military and patrol the borders? What about imports and exports? Didn't they need gasoline (at a minimum) for their military? Did they just close off the country completely with nothing going in or out? Did they just technologically regress back several centuries? How did it all function?

As someone who comes from a different time, my perspective of Japan has always been that of a wealthy nation and certainly not one unable to feed its children.

He did many things from the expansion of the state to major reform to civil war. He also mentored his successor like a son which could be called his fault, good or bad.

In other words, why do the British have the Falklands, Jamaica, etc etc as part of the common wealth or territories? For example, they did not put up with Spanish and with any Soviet interference (I understand that is a big leap considering the Cold War and the "Domino Effect")

I have been told previously that the presence of Roman currency in Southeast Asia is proof of their presence in the region. Is there any other evidence to support such speculation?