After reading the Mongol Empire by John Man and currently reading the historical fiction series by Iggulden I would like to find out more about them.

Any recommendations?

Not intended to be racial in nature. I was wondering that given the scale of the empire back then, it seems impossible for the Romans to have completely emigrated from that region when the Ottomans took over.

Specifically in countries that gained independence from Austria, Russia, and Germany during/after WWI, such as Poland, the Baltic states, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. We're these countries mostly dictatorships like Germany, Spain, and Italy? Or were they better able to form stable democratic governments?

I'd also be interested in the situation in the previously Ottoman states, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, and Yugoslavia.

It's interesting to me in that it seems like an early admission of at least some wrong doing was involved colonial/american settlers settling what was once native land.

You may have seen them refered to before as Pelasgians, Eteocretans, Eteocypriots, Lemnians, Minoans, etc. Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, other times not. Some posit a connection to the Sea Peoples, or the Tyrsenian language family, but neither connection has gained wide acceptance to my knowledge.

Wikipedia says this of the Pelasgians:

The name Pelasgians was used by some ancient writers to refer to populations that were either the ancestors of the Greeks or preceded the Greeks in Greece, "a hold-all term for any ancient, primitive and presumably indigenous people in the Greek world".

[...]

A tradition also survived that large parts of Greece had once been Pelasgian before being Hellenized.

Who were these supposedly pre-Greek (and pre-IE?) inhabitants of the Aegean? What are the leading theories? How could they persist into the era of writing with so little written about them?

Is the scenario I envision of them as indigenous inhabitants of the Balkans just like the modern Basques or Sami at all acurate? Did they eke out a living in remote mountain valleys while the newcomers in the plains below ignored them? Were they all enslaved? Gradually assimilated?

In the musical les miserables, jean valjean is released from French prison in 1815 after a 19 year sentence. Shortly after release he has a brush with the law and is nearly returned to prison. He laments the close call noting that prison would mean going "back beneath the lash, upon the rack." Where French prisoners of this period actually subjected to rack torture?

While we're on the subject, could you actually get 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread at that time?

From what I know, it seems fascism takes advantage of certain traits in a population. Nationalism, unity, prosperity. Powerful leaders mobilize an entire nation by crafting a common enemy, almost an 'us vs them' mindset. Why is it then only relatively recently we have had such large fascist movements? Or was it always the case, but we just saw it as the norm, people battling and swearing loyalty 'for the king'?

For example, we have King George or Queen Elizabeth. On the other hand we have President Obama. What historical development contributed to this phenomenon?

What was going down in the Russian political circles from Stalin's death to Khrushchev formally taking power?

[deleted]

Title

We've always heard ABCs in that order? Is there a reason? Do other languages have a similar progression?

I'm reading the three musketeers. Which I believe is based on 18th century France, but I'm sure you guys will correct me if I'm wrong. The protagonists of the story (of which I'm only half through reading) all lackeys. Characters who seem to have no set reward for their duties, but rather share in the exploits of their masters in admiration and in hope to share their fame or glory.

Aside from the fact that they were forcibly conquered, how much did being under Roman rule actually affect the average non-roman's life? Were most enslaved or allowed to remain free? Aside from not having voting and government rights were they otherwise treated as an obvious underclass? Would quality of life noticeably improve or worsen? Or did they just tend to see it as one master being traded for another?

Was "Istanbul" not commonly known, and if not, when did that change?

Today, when someone mentions a "spooky" or "scary" looking house one often imagines an old Victorian house with wrought iron fencing, overgrown lawns, etc. A google image search of "haunted house" turns up many, many "scary" Victorian houses.

Did people in the English speaking world in the Victorian era look at, say, old decrepit Georgian style buildings as being scary in the same we see old, ill-kept Victorian buildings?

I understand that ancient Greek cults were not the secretive organizations we associate today with the word "cult", but some of them were secret and members had to be initiated.

How was decided who would be told about the existence of a cult and offered an opportunity to be initiated?

Thanks.

Would the ancient Chinese refer to year 1620 as something other than the Gregorian year? Would they even use digits to label it? I know nothing of how traditional Chinese time is recorded.

In general it seems like the entire arms race of dreadnoughts pre-ww1 was massively anticlimactic with large fleets dreadnoughts never really coming together as was expected. Why did this happen? How was seemingly the entire world so wrong about what naval combat would look like?

One thing I have heard is that WW1 era dreadnoughts were very limited in their ability to use indirect fire because of the shallow angle of their main guns. This seems like a major limitation and given the prominent role of artillery barrages during WW1 it seems like designing ships that could provide effective ship to shore artillery barrages would have been part of the logical design progression of these ships. The Gallipoli campaign in particular seems like an place where effective indirect fire against the enemy positions would have been really helpful.

Did the allies recognize this shortcoming in light of their failure to capture the Dardanelles? Did dreadnoughts/battleships with increased indirect fire capabilities ever see combat in WW1? If not what factors prevented this technology from reaching the battlefield?

Is the etymology related or is it just a coincidence?

Whenever I see a deleted post on /r/AskHistorians, I find my curiosity piqued.
Since I never see the original text, I can't help but wonder what happened to get it removed.

So, I want to ask the moderators:
As a ballpark estimate, how many of the posts that you delete do you feel are people honestly trying to answer the OP (i.e. offering a one sentence answer, using anecdotal evidence, echoing Wikipedia, or just otherwise "failing in good faith") versus posts trying to just make a cheap joke versus honest to goodness trolls?
Obviously, the notion of "good faith" is slippery one, as is trying to ascribe motives to any given poster, but I was curious about "gut feelings" on this. Feel free to define "good faith," "troll," and any other pertinent term as you see fit.

And, as always, I want to thank the mods for their work here. It is greatly appreciated.