Thanks!

This is a question that has intrigued me for a while now. My reading suggests many dates from the early 300's right up to 1066, all of which have valid points and flaws, so its difficult to pin down a real date.

To just list a few and the motivation behind their nomination:

1. 312- The conversion of the Emperor Constantine– (Religious)
2. 378- Battle of Adrianople (Military)
3. 476- Fall of the last Western Emperor (Political)
4. 600(s).- Islamic Expansion (Agricultural)
5. 800- Coronation of Charlemagne (Political Mk. II)
6. (Around) 1066- Norman conquest or beginning of Norman troubles (Anglocentric)

Does anyone have any other suggestions or opinions on when exactly the Medieval Period began?

I know that Kambei shaving his head is particularly significant as he is losing his chonmage, but I'm referring more to the fact that considerable effort has been made to have just about all of the male villagers bald on top. Is there any particular significance to portraying a character in this way?

Italian-Americans claim him. But modern Italy as a state is a 19th century invention. Would Columbus call himself an Italian? Was that term/identity used in the 15th century?

Wilhelm II said to his soldiers "You will be home before the leaves fall from the trees. " and as we know, four years of trench war followed. Were there any scholars, journalists etc who have warned this might not be the case?

I'm predominantly interested in how the World Wars would have shaped the contemporary curriculum, things like lack of teachers, or anything like that. Thanks in advance :)

Is Stanley Jaki a credible historian? If so, how credible is his theory of science rising from Christianity?

You know how names have meanings - Smith meant that you were from a family of blacksmiths, or Quintus means fifth son, and so on?

So, what did Caesar mean before Gaius became the dictator we know and love today?

Did the Europeans displace them somehow? Were they still present but overshadowed? Or did they stop seeing the value of trading with the Chinese?

Or should the Allies instead have crossed the Siegfried line?

I read a book some time ago titled "The Knights Templar: The History and Myths of the Legendary Military Order"by Sean Martin, and it mentioned that the Templars had a rather high tolerance of Muslims for the time, off of the battlefield of course. They even reserved a small prayer room in their head chapter house for Muslim visitors. I think the book also detailed an incident where a newly arrived crusader knight was in their hq, saw a Muslim praying in the small prayer room, tried to force him to stop, the Templar guards noticed this and threw the offending knight out of the building. I'm not entirely certain on the accuracy of the book's accounts, but did the Knights Templar have an unusually high tolerance towards people of Islam even during the crusades?

To my knowledge, it was common to have large shields deployed during battle by dedicated troops but these were large and meant to be driven into the ground more like an emplacement we see in siege work. Other than that there have only been a handful of examples of Japanese soldiers using shields in periods such as the Sengoku Jidai from what I have found.

What are the reasons for this? Was it doctrinal or was it part of the martial culture of the period?

Asking this because the Spanish Republicans were mostly composed of various socialist and anarchist groups.

Was it common for the era that works of major figures be lost to the ages?

Since the US was so worried of countries falling to communism, was it the same for the Soviets. We only ever learn about the US side of the Cold War, and not that of the Soviets? Or was all of this history destroyed at the end of the Cold War?