We all know what happened with Ancient Egypt, but why did advancements in society not evolve or 'take off' like they did in Asia and Europe? The continent has plenty natural resources. It seems like all the tools were there for big advancements, but they never came. Why?

Edit: When I say "how was it distinguished," I mean to say, "at the time Don Quixote first became considered the first Western novel, which features of that text were used to distinguish it from earlier prose narratives?" The character limit kind of forced me to be a little imprecise.

What happend to the majestic gens Furia? it looks like dissapeared in 343 and there was nothing else to talk about it.

We often read how Great Britain "ruled the waves" in the 19th century which is what allowed the to obtain and keep such a large colonial empire, but which were the other "top 5" navies at the time and was this due to simply the size of the fleet or did British naval officers have exemplary tactical and strategic skills?

I just finished reading Stephen Oppenheimer's Origins of the British. As a biochemist, I'm excited to see tools that biologists have developed used to contribute new theories to the historical field.

However, I find two of his historical claims to be exceptionally different from what I've learned from conventional history all my life, and I didn't find his evidence as convincing as his genetic evidence:

1. Is there serious scholarly support for the idea that Celtic languages arrived in Britain much earlier than the spread of Hallstatt and La Tene cultures? If so, what does that mean about these cultures if they were not a linguistic spread?

2. Has any new research come out since the book was published that corroborates his claim that the Belgae of Caesar's time were actually 'Saxons' in Britain? Do we know anything else about their identity, be it Germanic or Celtic?

What spices and herbs would a middle class person use to flavor their food before trade with the far east and middle east made imports affordable? ( I think I'm asking about the Middle Ages and perhaps the early portion of the Early Modern period).

I just finished reading Why Homer Matters by Adam Nicholson, and there was a very brief section about copies our current version was made from, discoveries of older manuscripts, and citations in authors from antiquity that differ from the version compiled in Alexandria. I would love to read more about this and the transmission of other classics, but haven't had much luck finding anything. Any help would be appreciated!

It's on Netflix if you haven't seen it

There's a third belligerent according to the Wikipedia page known as the 'Stanley family'. Any context for this?

After World War 2, unlike other colonial powers who granted independence to most of its colonies, why did the french clang on to vietnam? A side question, what factors made the vietnamese independence movement so violent? Thanks!

Why did the church stubbornly keep a geocentric worldview even though it was proven wrong

Granted I'm sure the answer is probably going to be "A bit of both"

But where did that accent and it's derivations come from? Is it a mixture of remnants of the Brits and French that settled there with a dash of the US?

Left with a ton of questions, i would humbly request the historians answer or advise on some:

During the Gallic campaign Caesar asks for hostages every time he succeeds in "humbling" a tribe, however most would revolt shortly after anyways, so why insist on it? Or in what way was this effective?

Romans did awesome siege works, and they are explained in the books, however, besides the fact that i'm Portuguese and therefore i don't really understand most of the concepts, is there anywhere we can see a representation of the sieges done in Gaul?

As an enthusiast i would love to read more about Caesar, and or any of the Roman military campaigns, what other audiobooks would you recommend?

Thank you

Ps: I've also heard the Roman history on the great courses online and the audiobook Hannibal, also very good.

I'm watching the documentary "Hitler - A Career" right now on Netflix.

I primarily wondered about the economics of the Nazi government, but it seems that question has been answered in another thread.

So my only remaining question is this: How on Earth did the Nazis find money to fund themselves before Hitler was appointed Chancellor?

I mean, the SA was a large political army, and the Nazis held many huge rallies that must have cost insane money. In particular, the "Hitler Over Germany" tour must have cost an insane amount of money.

It'd be like if the Democrats funded their own army, held DNC huge conventions every week, and bought extremely expensive vehicles to chauffeur all their candidates (Hitler apparently liked Mercedes Benz vehicles).

I've read Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi, and am starting the Great Learning. Generally one would skip to ZhuXi after that, but I would assume a lot would happen in between. The Qin dynasty wasn't very long lasting, so how about from the Han dynasty to the Song Dynasty?