Before the 18th century the word Nationalism didin't exist. What were people before this ideology came to existent? Weren't people already somehow nationalistic?

I know that the temperance movement was a in part a christian movement, but in the Bible Jesus litteraly ask his followers to drink wine in his memory and priests actually drink wine when celebrating mass. Woudn't complete prohibition of alcohol considered anti-christian?

Given that virtually no peasants would be literate and what writings they did make were not likely to be preserved, what primary sources do we have regarding their experience? Are they largely in the form of interviews/records created by literate clergy? Particularly interested in Russian peasants under the tsars and emperors and their relationship with the ruling classes (I'm familiar with the Primary Chronicle which touches on that under the princes, but obviously isn't the work of a peasant), but any answers are helpful!

what historical problems did these two systems try to fix in the medieval era?

Basically what I know about Boudica is:

• Tacitus wrote about her

• She's a character in Civ

• The British have named several ships HMS Boadicea

• She's supposedly buried between platforms 9 and 10 in King's Cross Station (which seems to be an odd place for a burial, but I digress)

What if any sources do we have about her actual life, and how reliable are they considered in the modern era?

Apologies if I'm using the wrong era name.

I was wondering why Republics, states without kings or monarchies, were tolerated in an era where it was believed that Kings ruled by divine right?

Am I totally misunderstanding how divine right works? I know that the Roman Republic was allowed, but that was pagan. Why did Christian Kingdoms allow Republics to exist, and how did they differentiate between Venice/Genoa etc who apparently could be led by anyone and kingdoms who were ruled by divine right?

This struck me as unusual so I thought I'd ask.

I'm reading some minutes of a church meeting held in April 1841 in Manchester, England. It mentions that a visiting preacher presented a "richly ornamented cake" made by his wife in New York City and that they distributed cake to nearly 700 people. This preacher wasn't especially wealthy, so I imagine it was the kind of cake an average American woman could make in 1841.

What kind of cake would've been likely sent? A really fast Atlantic crossing in 1841 was about 2 weeks--what kind of cake could hold up in the mail for 2 or 3 weeks? That was also big enough for 700 people to have a taste?

What would a "richly ornamented" cake look like in 1841?

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity!

Just what the title says.From what I could gather the success of the British was a combination of expanding naval trade and the country's relatively newly founded colonies and territories. That said I still am left wondering how they got in the position to dominate in those areas in the first place? Unless it was something else all together? A quick google search didn't show anything convincing so I thought I'd bring it here. Thanks for the input!

And additional: If there were concerns about her ancestry, did these resurface when it became clear she'd be queen instead of just married to the spare.

The only sources I've found tend to be North Korean in nature so are highly suspect.

What do we know about the Sinchon Massacre?

Carthago stands out in my mind, as well as an Assyrian city that I can't recall the name of.

From what I understand, as soon as Stalin became leader of Soviet Russia, he immediately started to prepare the country for war. Hence all the 5 Year Plans.

I'm not from US, so I don't have a "deep" knowledge of US history. Nevertheless- recently I've developed some degree of interest in how US developed. Thus, knowing that Dems/Reps are political parties which exist almost from the beginning of US, I was really interested in what was their stance on slavery, egality and so on. I was rather shocked when it occurred to me, that it were Democrats that supported slavery while Republicans had exactly opposite goals. When did it actually start then?

As an extra question, being only partially historical- what's the reason for modern branding of them? I can see overwhelming number of voices calling Republicans outright "evil" and Democrats as "good"- was it like that since these parties were founded?

I'm not very experienced or knowledgeable about pistols, so maybe this method of using the offhand to pull the hammer of a pistol back, rather than pulling the trigger, has some utility that is not obvious.

But, it seems as though it would jostle the weapon more (reducing aim), and also be slower, than simply using the trigger.

Is there any evidence that this method was actually used? If so, why? Thank you!

I'm also curious if the mechanics of that shift were unique to Belgium, or if it's something that's been repeated in other European cities as well (though I understand that most countries don't have Belgium's particular language politics).